1268 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[S 162
be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the a t
I.,~es_ou ts,·d e the d1stnct
• . rres ee
or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the
d1stn~t and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within
a penod of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
(5) The person arrested must be made aware of his right to ha
someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put und:e
arrest or is detained. · r
. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regard-
ing the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next -
friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names
and particulars of police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at
the time of his arrest, and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her
body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be
signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and
its copy provided to the arrestee.
(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a
trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor
on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services
of the State or Un ion Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should
prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well.
(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred
to as above, should be sent to the Magistrate concerned for his record.
(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during inter-
rogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State
headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of
custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the
arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control
room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.
Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall,
apart from rendering the official concerned liable for departmental action,
also render him liable to be punished for contempt of court and the
proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High Court of
the country having territorial jurisdiction over the matter - D.K. Basu v
State of WB. (1997)1 SCC 416.
162. Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in
evidence.-(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in
the course of an investigation under this Chapter shall, if reduced to writing,
be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any
record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such
statement or record, be used for any purpose, save a~y ereinatter

/
/

/
./
S 162] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1269
provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation
at the time when such statement was made:
Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such
inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid,
any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused,
and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict
such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used,
any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness,
but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-
examination.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement
falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 ( 1 of 1872), or to affect the provisions of section 27
of that Act.
Explanation.-An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statr
ment referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the sa ..
appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the con-
text in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts
to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.
NOTES
Applicability.-Section 162 has been enacted for the benefit of the
accused. The bar created by this section is a limited one and has no ap-
, ';cation if the statement made before a police officer in the course of an
im, j qation under Chapter XII is sought to be used in any proceeding
other than an inquiry or trial or even at an inquiry or trial but in respect
of an offence other than that which was under investigation at the time
when such statement was made - AIR 1981 SC 1068: 1981 Cr LJ 597:
(1981) 2 sec 493. The statement recorded under sec. 161 shall not be
used for any purpose except to contradict a witness in the manner
prescribed in the proviso to sec. 162( 1) . The Fl R is not a substantial piece
of evidence - (1954)4 sec 692. Statement not partaking the character
of confessional statement envisaged by sec. 27 of the Evidence Act would
not be admissible in view of the bar of sec. 162 of the Code - 1992 Cr
lJ 1755 All.
Scope.-Statement made to police during investigation cannot be
used as substantive evidence - 1980 Cr LJ 564: {1980)2 sec 390. It
can be used only for the purpose of contradicting the prosecution witness
under ~ec. 145 of th~ Evid~nce Act~ AIR 1976 SC 251: (1976)2 SCC
231 . It 1s not substantive evidence which can be relied upon_ AIR 1978
sc 1511: 1978 Cr LJ 1531: (1978) 1 sec 435- but the former stat t
may be used for contradiction - AIR 1979 SC 400: 1979 Cr L1~~;:
 1270 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [S 162
sec
(1979)3 90. However, substance of the interrogation recorded by
the investigating officer cannot, in any way, be termed to be a statement
recorded under section 161 which could be used for the purpose of con-
tradiction of the witness under section 162 Cr.P.C. - Narayan v State
sec
(2000)8 457.
Section 162 does not exclude evidence relating to conduct of an ac-
cused (not amounting to a statement) when confronted with or questioned
by a police officer during course of the investigation - State v Navjot
Sandhu (2005) 11 sec 600: 2005 Cr LJ 3950.
Insignificant omissions - contradictions.-lnsignificant omissions
in the statement of witnesses to the police are no ground for disbelieving
then, - AIR 1979 SC 1234: 1979 Cr LJ 1027: 1980 Supp. sec 157. As
held in Narayan v State, (2000)8 SCC 457, only such omissions which
amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit
the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself
would not necessarily render the testimony of the witness unreliable. When
the version given by the witness in the court is different in material par-
ticulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the
prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are
bound to appear even in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory
sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person
to person and the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of the
witness; see also, State v Lekh Raj (2000)1 sec 247.
Non-examination of Investigating Officer - effect-This may
cause prejudice to the accused depending on the facts and circumstances
of the case. But no universal straitjacket formula should be laid down that
non-examination per se vitiates a criminal trial - Behari v State 1996 Cr
LJ 1653 (SC).
Dying declaration recorded by police.-Although a dying declara-
tion recorded by a police officer in course of investigation is admissible
in evidence under sec. 32 of the Evidence Act, it is better to leave such
dying declaration out of consideration until and unless the prosecution
satisfies the court as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or by a
· doctor - AIR 1979 SC 1173: 1979 Cr LJ 700: (1979)4 sec 332; see
also AIR 1976 SC 2199: 1976 Cr LJ 1718: (1976)3 sec 104.
Statements of witnesses recorded during inquest.-Section 162
was conceived to protect an accused creating an absolute bar against
the previous statement made before the police officer being used for any
purpose whatsoever. Statements of witnesses recorded during inquest
and enclosed with inquest report cannot be used in evidence - (1991 )4
sec 341 .
Value of statement to police during investigation.-Statements
made by prosecution witnesses before the investigating police officer being

.........iii
S 162) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1271
the earliest statements made by them with reference to the facts of the
occurrence are valuable material for treating the veracity of the witnesses
examined in court, with particular reference to those statements which
happen to be at variance with their earlier statements but the statements
made during police investigation are not substantive evidence. Hence the
record mad~ by a police inv~st_igating officer has to be considered by the
court only with a view to we1ghmg the evidence actually adduced in court
-AIR 1956 SC 181: 1956 Cr LJ 345.
Where names of assailants were not mentioned in the F.I.R. but men-
tioned in the supplementary statements during investigation, such state-
ments were hit by sec. 162 of the Code and could not be relied upon as
part of the F.I.R. - Husna v State (1996)7 sec 382; see also, Golla v
State 1996 Cr LJ 2470(SC). The supplementary statement recorded by
the Investigating Officer can only be used to contradict the witness. That
statement cannot be used for comparing it with the FIR. If the Investigating
Officer elicited more details from the same person during subsequent in-
terrogation, his evidence does not become suspect - Harpal v Devinder
(1997)6 sec 660.
Omission, when amounts to contradiction - Explanation.-
Reading section 161(2) Cr.P.C. with the explanation to section 162, an
omission in order to be significant must depend upon whether the specific
question, the answer to which is omitted, was asked to the witness.
Whether any omission amounts to a contradiction shall be a question of
fact - Jaswant v State (2002)4 sec 484.
Explanation: What constitutes 'contradiction' .-The word "con-
tradiction" is of a wide connotation. It is used in Explaination to sec. 162
to mean setting up of a statement against another and not the se~in_g up
of a statement against nothing at all. All omissions are not contrad1c_tIo~s.
The Explaination to sec. 162 makes it clear that whether an~ omission
amounts to contradiction in the particular context is a questio~ of fact.
Minor discrepancies cannot be termed as contradiction unl~ss it affects
the credibility of the evidence tendered by a witness - Sashidhar v state
(2004)12 sec 492: AIR 2004 SC 5075; see also Rudrappa v State( 2oo4 )
7
sec 422:AIR 2004 SC 4148: Held in Shri Gopal v Subhash (2004)13
sec 174: AIR 2004 sc 4900: 2004 Cr LJ 3349 that omission_by PWs to
state before the police about exhortations by all the a~c~sed, in th e facts
and circumstances of the case amounted to contradiction. ..
. '
Statement made by a witness before t e poh 1·ce
1 - The posItIon of
• . .
law in this regard is wellsettled by the Supreme Court in ~-K. Mishra v
State of Uttarakhand (2015)9 sec 588: (2015)4 sec (Cn) 1; also see
Krishan Chander v State of Delhi (2016)1 sec (Cri) 725: (2016)3 sec
108. The relevant paragraphs are extracted herein below :
1272 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[S 163
"Section 162 Cr PC bars use of statement of witnesses recorded
by the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such
witnesses as indicated there. The statement made by a witness
before the police under section 161 (1) Cr PC can be used only for
the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated
at the trial as laid down in the proviso to section 162(1) Cr PC. The
statements under section 161 Cr PC recorded during the investiga-
tion are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily
for the limited purpose: (1) of contradicting such witness by an ac-
cused under section 145 of the Evidence Act; (it) the contradiction
of such witness also by the prosecution but with the leave of the
Court; and (iit) the re-examination of the witness if necessary.
The court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not
proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent
with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words in section 162
Cr PC 'if duly proved' clearly show that the record of the statement of
witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightaway nor can be looked
into but they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by elicit-
ing admission from the witness during cross-examination and also during
the cross-examination of the investigating officer. The statement before
the investigating officer can be used for contradiction but only after strict
compliance with section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is, by drawing at-
tention to the parts intended for contradiction."
Omission when does not amount to contradiction.-ln Baldev
Singh v State of Punjab (2014)12 sec 473 the·omissions in the statement
of PW 3 recorded under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. are with regard to the nature,
number and colour of the vehicles and the number of men who had come
as well as what happened after the aforesaid incident on 29.10.1991. The
apex court is of the opinion that the trial court and the High Court had
rightly considered these omissions as not material omissions amounting
to contradictions covered by the Explanation under sec. 162 Cr.P.C.
163. r,lo inducement to be offered.-(1) No police officer or other
person in authority shall offer or make, or cause to be offered or made,
any such inducement, threat or promise as is mentioned in section 24 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).
(2) But no police officer or other person shall prevent, by any caution
or otherwise, any person from making in the course of any investigation
under this Chapter any statement which he may be disposed to make of
his own free will:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of
sub-section (4) of section 164.
164. Recording of confessions and statements.-(1) Any
Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has

___,,,,,,..