Chapter XII
Section 162 CrPC: Statements to police not to be signed; Use of statements in evidence
New Law Update (2024)
Section 180 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Investigation / Inquiry
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(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 as hereinafter 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.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 162(1)
This subsection prohibits the signing of statements made to the police during an investigation and restricts their use in court. It primarily allows such statements to be used by the accused, and with court permission by the prosecution, solely to contradict a witness under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 162(2)
This subsection clarifies that the restrictions on police statements do not apply to certain crucial types of statements. Specifically, it exempts dying declarations under Section 32(1) and discovery statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, allowing them to be admissible as per their respective provisions.
Landmark Judgements
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. (1959):
This landmark Supreme Court judgment clarified the restrictive scope of Section 162 CrPC. It held that a statement made to the police during an investigation can only be used for the purpose of contradiction of a prosecution witness under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, and not for corroboration or any other purpose, thus strictly limiting its evidentiary value.
State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash Misra (1974):
The Supreme Court reiterated that statements recorded by the police under Section 162 CrPC are inadmissible except for the limited purpose of contradicting a witness as specified in the proviso. The Court emphasized that such statements cannot be used as substantive evidence or for corroboration.
Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1979):
This case further elucidated the application of the proviso, particularly concerning the prosecution’s ability to use a Section 162 statement. It affirmed that the prosecution can use such a statement to contradict a hostile witness, but only with the express permission of the Court and strictly in accordance with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.