Legal Fighter (Advocate) 30 June 2011
N.K.Assumi (Advocate) 30 June 2011
Refer to Supreme Court Judgment in Harkirat Singh Vs State of Punjab1997-(005) -SCALE-0076-SC. Ths case relates to contradicting statements in the Case Diary,FIR, Inquest report and statements recorded under 161 CrPc.
Ravikant Soni (LAWYER IN JAIPUR) 30 June 2011
Assumi sir this rulling has no work here. Its about
Death of person lodging FIR - Contents of FIR - Could be used for purpose of corroborating or contradicting person lodging FIR if he had been examined but not as substantive piece of evidence.
prashant pundhir (Criminal Lawyer) 11 July 2011
Most of the accused denied from the stament of 161 cr.p.c. and it does'nt matter . Their chief examimination against the court is only admissible .The value of 161 is only upto the time of the bail and nothing else .
A Truthseeker ( A retired Indian citizen) 15 December 2011
there is a stage of charge hearing .at this stage the judge will consider the 161 statement and also the defence lawyer .if the 161 statement is not confidence inspirtng the accused is entitled to discharge.
Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA) 23 December 2011
Agreed with all experts on diverse issues.
However, this alone is no ground for discharge.
jatinderpal singh (officer) 24 February 2012
in the court during trial after 12 years found that the statment of witness under section161 crpc is not attached as per IO He is made the statment the court order to police station and io for copy of statment but the statment is not found means is missing so that case the witnes is elgible for exmination during trial
Carlisle Collins (Samaritan) 28 April 2012
Supreme Court had occasion to caution the Court to be vigilant against the motivated or unfair dealings of the investigating officers during the course of investigation. In the case of Karnel Singh v. State of M.P the Supreme Court said: "In cases of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective."