LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

harish prabhu (advocate)     31 January 2010

Sec 161 of crpc

IF IN A CASE OF 506 , THE 161 STATEMENT OF A WITNESS IS NOT AT ALL RECORDED, THEN DOES THE ENTIRE CHIEF EXAMINATION AMOUNTS TO IMPROVISING , ISN'T IT.OR NOT?

IF ANY CITATION REGARDING THIS PLS POST.



Learning

 11 Replies

K.C.Suresh (Advocate)     01 February 2010

CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IN FAVOUR OF DEFENSE IF THERE IS NO 161 STATEMENT. 161 STTAEMENT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AS SUCH. ONLY CAN BE USD FOR CONTRADICTIONS. sO THAT BBENEFIT THE DEFENSE WILL GET.


(Guest)

You ought to have objected to the examination of a witness in the court, who was not examined by the police at the stage of investigation s.161. I think there are case laws on the point, although I do not remember it at the moment.

VIPIN SHARMA (Mob.-9610000043) (ADVOCATE)     01 February 2010

Statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are not admissible in evidence it can be used for contradiction purposes. If some one's statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded still prosecution can examine such witness with permission of the court.

                                 Vipin Sharma, Advocate

                                   337, Akron ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur-302001

                                                     Mob. 9610000043

ramprasad reddy. pottipati (Lawyer)     01 February 2010

Sir,

U have not stated that whether the witness is the victim or not . The prosecution can make any witness additionally, eventhough he was not cited a witness in the charge sheet. If the name of a witness in the charge sheet not examined by the I.O under 161 Cr.P.C u can take it as advantage. U better go through the part I C.D, it clearly reveals the investigation conducted by the I.O. Moreover 506IPC is a non-cognizable offence and Sec 155 Cr.P/C is a mandatory.

harish prabhu (advocate)     01 February 2010

In this case , its not the victim sir, but he happens to be the brother of the said victim, they have also made a additional witness, who is not in the charge sheet, and then IO has not been examined either, and also only 2 independent witnesses, all others are related with each other, but don't know  y the lower court has convicted him in the case, we r only 6 months into profession and my buddy is going before the high court bench on next tuesday. so any related citations would be helpful,,,,,,thank u brothers for ur priceless advises


(Guest)

Harish - I like to help new comers.  Since you have mentioned you are one,  I have gone out of the way and searched one citation which may be helpful to you. Full judgement you will get from www.indiankanoon.org for free.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
 
Criminal Application No. 2783/2007
 
Decided On: 01.04.2008
 
Appellants: Gangu S/o Suryabhan Jadhav
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O.
Ratio Decidendi:

”Examination of witness whose statement has not been filed with charge sheet, permissible only when prosecution established that said witness was examined during the investigation and only due to inadvertence his statement could not could not be filed along with the charge sheet”

I hope the above will be useful to you.  If I get time I will search more for you.

1 Like

harish prabhu (advocate)     02 February 2010

Thank you very much Menon Sir, V are very much dedicated to the profession sir, since i came into profession i have seen many of my classmates taking other jobs as they r not able to cope up with the advocacy pressure, by very few of us r determined to fight it out, its a pleasure to have helping hands of senior counsels.....thanking you.............


(Guest)

Harish - V.good for your determination.  This is a beutiful profession. Alongwith dedication be passionate.  Your are bound to Succeed.  When I started off I had none to look upto. Today platforms like LCI provides helping hand.  You can always count on me.


(Guest)

 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 161  --- Non recording of statement of a witness during the course of investigation - It affects the weight to be attached to the evidence of such witnesses but it does not render it inadmissible. (Dayal Singh Vs State of Maharashtra), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 0308 : 2007(3) APEX COURT J 0204
 

(Guest)

 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARIJIT PASAYAT &  S.H.KAPADIA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal Nos.256-257 of 2005 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) Nos.1666-1667 of 2004), D/08.02.2005.
State of U.P.
Vs
Satish

7. As regards delayed examination of certain witnesses, this Court in several decisions has held that unless the Investigating Officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of the witnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that if there is any delay in examination of a particular witness the prosecution version becomes suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible and acceptable and the court accepts the same as plausible, there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion [See Ranbir and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 1409; Bodhraj @ Bodha and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2002(2) Apex Court Judgments 391 (S.C.) : 2002(8) SCC 45 and Banti @ Guddu v. State of M.P., 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 608 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 27 (S.C.) : 2004(1) SCC 414].
18. The High Court has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra, 1978(4) SCC 371. A bare reading of the fact situation of that case shows that the delayed examination by I.O. was not the only factor which was considered to be determinative. On the contrary it was held that there were catena of factors which when taken together with the delayed examination provided basis for acquittal.
19. It is to be noted that the explanation when offered by I.O. on being questioned on the aspect of delayed examination, by the accused, has to be tested by the Court on the touchstone of credibility. If the explanation is plausible then no adverse inference can be drawn. On the other hand, if the explanation is found to be implausible, certainly the Court can consider it to be one

SUBRAMANIAN (CFO)     15 January 2011

sir

the statement recorded from witness u/s 161 filed along with charge sheet in a delayed manner.what will be the impact!any APEX JUDGEMENT TO THIS EFFECT!

 

regds


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query