CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE
CODE
TOPIC: WITNESS STATEMENTS
 SYNOPSIS

S:NO PARTICULARS Pg:NO

1 Introduction

2 Witness

3 Statements recorded under section 161

CrPC

4 Investigation of crime by the police

5 The evidentiary value of police statements

6 Delay in the recording of statements

7 Amendments to section 161 CrPC

8 Case laws

9 Conclusion

10 References
INTRODUCTION:

The examination of witnesses by police under the provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is an important stage in settling cases and punishing
criminals. During a witness examination, the police take the person’s statement to proceed
with the investigation under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However,
the word ‘statement’ is not defined under the CrPC. According to the Encyclopedia, a
statement is defined as a proclamation or explicit expression of anything in speaking or
writing. Section 161 of the CrPC deals with the examination of witnesses by the police, and
this provision allows the police or gives them authority to interrogate the witnesses whenever
they need to record the statements of the witnesses. The major goal of this Section is to
present the evidence before the court throughout the trial. This information is also valuable to
the court in formulating charges against the perpetrator.

WITNESS:

Before we go into the details of the examination of a witness, let us first define
the term ‘witness’. A witness is a person who sees an event happening, especially a crime or
an accident, or who testifies under oath in a legal trial. The term ‘witness’ itself reveals the
meaning: any individual who observed the crime and has firsthand knowledge of any
occurrence in a criminal case, which assists the lawyer in testifying the evidence as well as
the courts in delivering judgments. During a criminal trial, a summons is frequently issued to
the witness to appear in court and make her statement. Witnesses are also grouped into
several kinds based on their function in providing information about an event that occurred in
a criminal case. As a result, the law allows for a total of three types of witnesses.

TYPES OF WITNESS:

Witnesses can be categorized based on their roles and the nature of their testimony. Generally,
there are three primary types of witnesses:

Eyewitness:

An eyewitness is a witness who witnessed the alleged crime. This witness is

frequently seen as untrustworthy in comparison to circumstantial evidence, which is more
authentic and dependable. However, if numerous persons observed the incident with their
eyes, lawyers will perceive the recurrence of the same event by different witnesses.

Expert witness:

An expert witness is a person who has excellent knowledge and is knowledgeable in a

certain subject, which aids in witnessing the evidence gathered. These individuals are
regarded as superior to regular witnesses since they are specialised in a specific field. These
individuals include forensic specialists, ballistic experts, psychiatrists, and others.

Character witness:

A character witness is a witness who, under oath, affirms the excellent character or
reputation of a person in the society in which he lives, and these sorts of witnesses are
primarily there to recollect and assert that person’s positive characteristics and ethics in front
of the court. These witnesses are only summoned and recorded when the defendant’s
reputation and characteristics are brought into question.

But one aspect is missing, i.e., trustworthiness in all sorts of witnesses. There is a lot of
disagreement about the trustworthiness of witnesses in criminal cases. Many times, witnesses
make misleading statements, resulting in incorrect judgments. This is a major issue not only
in India but also in other countries.

STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161 CrPC:

Interrogation is a critical component of the inquiry. The authority to conduct

an inquiry is fundamentally one of the first stages toward imparting justice, and such power
becomes increasingly vital when the offence is serious in such circumstances. Oral statements
supplied by witnesses, if properly documented while adhering to due process of law, might go
a long way toward assisting prosecutions in obtaining convictions.

On the other hand, failure to follow established stages and procedures can be
damaging to the victim/informant since the evidential value of the statement is decreased,
which in turn will make the defence counsel’s case stronger. When an investigation begins,
one of the first things an investigating officer must do is contact the persons who appear to be
familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case, as provided under Section 160 of the
CrPC.
 According to Section 160(1), an investigative officer may order any individual to
appear before him if the following circumstances are met:

1. The order demanding the person’s presence must be in writing.

2. The individual looks to be familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case; and
3. The summons issued under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code should
contain the name, rank, and address of the Investigating Officer and the particulars of
the First Information Report (FIR) and the offence.
4. The individual summoned for investigation is within the jurisdiction of the
investigating police officer’s police station or any neighbouring police station.
5. In line with the rules, the police officer must also pay this person’s reasonable
expenses when they appear at a site other than their house.

But this Section’s proviso states that men under the age of 15 and females shall not be
required to visit the police station, and the examination and recording of their statements may
take place at their house. This provision is designed to provide specific protection to children
and women from the potential humiliations and inconveniences caused by the abuse of police
authority under Section 160(1).

On a simple reading of this Section, it is evident that this Section gives the police
officer broad authority to record statements from anybody familiar with the facts and
circumstances of the matter under investigation. Such authority will be rendered ineffective
unless it is backed up by some severe measures. This gap has been filled by making it a legal
duty for the person summoned to comply with such a notification unless they are exempted
from it by the Section’s proviso. Failure to comply with such a public servant’s command is
punishable by one-month imprisonment, a fine, or both under Section 174 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC).

Once the attendance notice has been delivered and the witness has arrived at the
police station, the investigating officer can conduct an oral examination under Section 161.
According to this Section, the witness is obligated to answer these questions truthfully.
Refusing to answer, wilful omission, and providing false information are punishable under
Sections 179, 202, and 203 of the IPC.
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES UNDER THIS SECTION:

The goal of Section 161 is to acquire evidence that can subsequently be used
in court. In the event of a trial before a court of the session or a warrant-case trial, a charge
may be filed against the accused based on the statement recorded by the police under Section
161. This Section gives the police the authority to question witnesses during an investigation.

Section 161(1) of the CrPC:

Section 161(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides police officers
with the authority to conduct oral examinations of individuals who are believed to have
knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding a case. This section plays a critical
role in the investigation process.

1. Broad Definition of ‘Any Person’:

The phrase “any person” in Section 161(1) includes not only witnesses but
also individuals who may be accused or suspected of the offense. This broad scope allows the
police to gather comprehensive information relevant to the investigation.

2. Case Reference - Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor (1939):

In this landmark case, the court confirmed that the term “persons” under
Section 161(1) encompasses anyone who may later be accused of the offense. This
interpretation is significant as it underscores the proactive approach police can take in
investigating potential suspects during preliminary inquiries.

Section 161(2) of the CrPC and Self-Incrimination:

Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) establishes essential

rights and obligations for individuals interrogated by police during an inquiry. It mandates
that individuals answer questions honestly while also providing robust protections against
self-incrimination.

1. Obligation to Answer Honestly:

Individuals who are interrogated are required to respond truthfully to the

police questions. This requirement aims to facilitate a thorough and accurate investigation.

2. Protection Against Self-Incrimination:

 Section 161(2) explicitly shields individuals from being compelled to answer
questions that could incriminate them. This protection is critical for ensuring fair treatment
under the law.

3. Judicial Interpretation - Nandidni Satpathy v. P. L. Dani (1978):

The Supreme Court ruled that a person accused of an offense cannot be forced
to make self-incriminating statements. This reinforces the principle that an accused individual
has the right to remain silent and is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

4. Constitutional Basis - Article 20(3):

The protection against self-incrimination is enshrined in Article 20(3) of the

Indian Constitution, which states that no person accused of a crime can be compelled to
testify against themselves. This constitutional provision further solidifies the right of the
accused to refuse to answer potentially damaging questions.

Section 161(3) of the CrPC:

Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) outlines specific

guidelines for recording witness statements during a police inquiry. This section ensures
clarity and integrity in the collection of evidence.

1. Recording in the First Person:

Witness testimonies must be recorded in the first person. This requirement

aims to maintain the accuracy and authenticity of the witness’s statements, ensuring they
reflect the individual’s direct account of events.

2. No Oath or Affirmation Required:

Unlike formal court testimonies, witness examinations under Section 161 do

not require the administration of an oath or affirmation. This reflects the preliminary nature of
police inquiries.

3. Prohibition on Synopsis Preparation:

The preparation of a synopsis or summary of the recorded statements is

explicitly forbidden. This rule helps prevent misrepresentation or distortion of the witness’s
original words.
 4. Use of Audio-Video Technology:

Statements recorded under this section may be captured using audio-video

technology, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of the evidence.

5. Female Witnesses:

For statements given by women, the law mandates that they be recorded by a
woman police officer or a female officer. This provision is designed to create a more
comfortable and safe environment for female witnesses during the inquiry process.

INVESTIGATION OF CRIME BY THE POLICE:

The investigation of a crime by the police is a critical preliminary step in the

criminal justice process, taking place before any court proceedings. In the landmark case
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi (1954), the Supreme Court of India outlined
the essential steps involved in a criminal police inquiry:

1. Going to the Crime Scene:

Police must promptly visit the location where the alleged crime occurred to
assess the situation and gather initial evidence.

2. Investigation of Facts:

The police investigate the circumstances surrounding the crime, including

interviewing witnesses and victims, and collecting relevant information.

3. Detection and Arrest:

Based on the gathered information, police may identify and arrest the alleged
perpetrator, following due process.

4. Gathering Evidence:

This involves collecting physical evidence, statements from witnesses, and

any other pertinent information that may support the case.

5. Preparing a Charge Sheet:

If sufficient evidence is found, the police compile a charge sheet as per

Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. This document outlines the
charges against the accused and is submitted to the Magistrate for further action.
THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE POLICE STATEMENTS:

Under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), police officers
are allowed to record statements from witnesses during an investigation without requiring the
witness’s signature. This practice aims to ensure that witnesses can provide information freely
without the pressure of formal documentation.

1. Section 162 of the CrPC:

This section prohibits the use of statements made to the police during an
inquiry as evidence in court, primarily to maintain the integrity of the evidence and prevent
potential coercion or manipulation. However, it does not automatically invalidate all
statements where a signature is obtained.

2. Credibility Concerns:

If a witness’s statement is signed, it may raise questions about its authenticity

and credibility. Courts must scrutinize such statements carefully, especially if there is a
suspicion that the signature was obtained improperly or that the statement is fabricated.

3. Cautious Evaluation:

While a signature on a police statement does not necessarily lead to its

outright rejection, courts should exercise caution when evaluating the testimony of witnesses
who provided such statements. The context and circumstances surrounding the signing must
be considered.

DELAY IN THE RECORDING OF STATEMENTS:

Timeliness in recording witness statements is crucial for the integrity of an

investigation. However, minor delays—such as a few hours—are generally not considered
significant infirmities in the process, provided there is no indication that the delay was
intentional to manipulate the witness’s account.

1. Minor Delays:

The legal system recognizes that a brief delay in recording statements does
not inherently undermine their reliability. What matters is the absence of any suspicion
regarding the motive behind the delay.
 2. Accused’s Rights:

Investigating officers cannot compel an accused to answer questions that

might incriminate them regarding other charges, even if the inquiry is not directly related to
those charges. This protects the accused’s right against self-incrimination.

3. Discrepancies in Statements:

If discrepancies arise between a statement made to the police and testimony

given in court, the prior statement can be used to challenge the credibility of the later
testimony, as established in P. Ailamma v. T. Zedson (1988). The court will assess whether
the discrepancies constitute material contradictions, affecting the weight of the evidence.

4. Material Omissions:

In cases of omissions-where a witness fails to mention certain facts-the court

evaluates whether such omissions are substantial. If deemed significant, they can be classified
as material contradictions that may impact the case’s outcome.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 161 CrPC:

Significant amendments to Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(CrPC) have been introduced to enhance the investigation process and ensure better handling
of sensitive cases. The key changes are as follows:

1. Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008:

This amendment, which came into effect on December 31, 2009, introduced a
crucial proviso in Section 161(3) mandating that witness statements be recorded using audio-
video electronic means. This change aims to improve the accuracy and reliability of witness
testimonies, providing a clear, verifiable record of what was said during the investigation.

2. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013:

Enacted on February 3, 2013, this amendment further refined the provisions

of Section 161(3) by specifying that in cases involving certain crimes against women and
children—such as those outlined in Sections 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code—the
witness statements must be recorded by a lady police officer or a female officer. This
requirement is intended to create a more sensitive and comfortable environment for victims,
encouraging them to provide accurate and complete accounts of their experiences.
CASE LAWS:

[1] Sewaki v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981)

Case Overview:

The case of Sewaki v. State of Himachal Pradesh is a significant judgment by the

Supreme Court of India that addresses issues related to the admissibility of evidence and the
role of witness statements in criminal trials.

Facts:

The case involved allegations of murder, and the prosecution relied heavily on witness
testimonies.

There were challenges regarding the reliability of the statements given to the police
and the subsequent testimonies presented in court.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of the witness statements and the
impact of any discrepancies between the statements made to the police and those given in
court.

1. Witness Statements:

The court emphasized that discrepancies in witness statements do not

automatically render the evidence inadmissible. Instead, the nature of the discrepancies must
be evaluated to determine their materiality.

2. Credibility of Witnesses:

The judgment reinforced the importance of assessing the credibility of

witnesses based on the totality of their evidence rather than isolated statements.

3. Legal Standards:

The court clarified that the legal standards for evaluating witness testimony
must consider the context of the statements and the circumstances under which they were
made.
[2] State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Others (1999)

Case Overview:

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Others, the Supreme Court of India
addressed important issues related to witness credibility and the admissibility of evidence in
criminal trials.

Facts:

The case involved allegations of murder, with the prosecution relying on witness
testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused.

The defence challenged the credibility of the witness statements, arguing that there
were significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in their accounts.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the accused, emphasizing several crucial points:

1. Credibility of Witnesses:

The court highlighted the need for consistent and reliable witness testimonies.
It noted that discrepancies in statements should not only be assessed for their existence but
also in the context of their materiality to the case.

2. Importance of Corroboration:

The judgment underscored that in cases of serious nature, such as murder, the
prosecution must provide corroborative evidence to support witness testimonies, especially
when such testimonies are the sole basis for conviction.

3. Principles of Criminal Justice:

The court reiterated the fundamental principle that the prosecution must prove
its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Any reasonable doubt arising from inconsistencies in
witness statements must lead to the acquittal of the accused.

CONCLUSION :

Though there are certain flaws in the recording of the Investigating Officer’s
remarks, it nonetheless plays an important part in the commencement of court proceedings.
The fundamental goal of Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to safeguard the
accused from both overzealous police personnel and untrustworthy witnesses. So there should
be stronger regulation and supervision authorities that would monitor the police during the
examination of witnesses. This will almost certainly lead to a better means of scrutinising
witnesses without police violence and rudeness, and this step will very certainly lead to
voluntary witnessing in the near future.

REFERENCE: