- Long Delay in Recording: An unexplained long delay in recording the statement of a material witness in a murder case (e.g., a delay of 10 days) will render their evidence unreliable.
- Evidence of a Witness: The evidence of a witness does not become untrustworthy merely because they were examined after a delay by the Investigating Officer. It is essential that the Investigating Officer be specifically questioned about the delay and the reasons for it. If the Investigating Officer took time to decide the direction of the case, this may raise doubts.
- Material Omission in the Copy of the Statement: If the copy of the statement of PW 3, as furnished to the accused, is accurate, then the defense is legitimately entitled to bring those material omissions on record and rely on them.
- No Special Rule for Recording: There is no special rule or direction in the Code regarding how a police officer should record statements of witnesses, but it is essential that the process be fair and proper. A police officer preparing notes of the statements at the place of occurrence and later preparing the statements at the police station does not act illegally.
- No Use of Previous Statement by the Approver to the Police: Where a previous statement was made by a witness, who was also an accused, during the course of investigation, it cannot be used for the purpose of contradicting the witness under Section 161, CrPC, as such a statement is not recorded under Section 162, CrPC.
- Not Compulsory to Record: It is not mandatory for a police officer to record statements of all persons examined. It is only necessary for the officer to examine all individuals acquainted with the facts of the case.
- Not Necessary to Record Verbatim: It is not necessary for the Investigating Officer to record the statements of witnesses verbatim.
- Persons Telling Lies May Be Prosecuted Under Section 182 of IPC: It has been held that a person giving a false statement may be liable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- Prayer for Transferring Investigation to an Impartial Agency: No bias has been alleged against the local police, and there is no reason why the investigation should be entrusted to another authority. No police officer was named as a respondent.
Case References:
- Ranbir v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 1409; 1973 Cri LJ 1120
- Banwari v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 Cri LJ 161
- Narpal v. State of Haryana, 1977 Cri LJ 642 (SC)
- G.B. Patel v. State, AIR 1979 SC 135; 1979 Cri LJ 51
Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email: soumyakundu16@gmail.com, Ph No: +9051244073
Please Drop Your Comments