Supreme Court: Portion of Section 161 CrPC Statement Used To Contradict Witness Must Be Proved Through Investigating Officer And Marked

The Supreme Court in the case Vinod Kumar versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) observed and has set aside the conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, IPC of a man after noting that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure for contradicting the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination with their previously recorded Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Cr.P.C. statements.

- TDG NETWORK

The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the present matter. The bench in the case held that the trial court erred by merely reproducing the contradicted portions of the witness's Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Cr.P.C. statements in brackets without properly proving the prior statement through the investigating officer.

The court in the case emphasized that when a witness is cross-examined using their Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Cr.P.C. statements, the specific portion used for contradiction must first be formally introduced as evidence through the investigating officer before it can be considered.