NATHU MANCHHU V. STATE OF GUJARAT, 1977

Citation: AIR 1978 Guj 49

Bench: J. D Desai, J. P Desai, J. B Mehta

Decided by: Gujarat High Court

Date of Judgement: 15 April, 1977

Introduction:

The instant case holds an important place in the legal domain in giving a ruling that reading over of the police statement to the witness before he enters the box does not amount to contravention of the prohibition contained in Sec. 162(1). But if we speak of fact of reading over the statement, then it may have a direct impact on probative value of the evidence provided by the witness. The police officer who made the investigation alone is entitled to look into the case diary to refresh his memory. No other person is entitled to look at the case diary including the accused and his agent.

Facts of the case:

1. In meetings, from which this appeal arises, Limji Ukad who is witness no. 10 and Chhaganbhai Vishalabhai, witness no. 11 are two witnesses for the prosecution. They were called upon to demonstrate an extra legal admission asserted to have been made before them by the denounced. Limji Ukad stated during cross-examination that the police read him his statement in the morning of the day of his deposition.
2. Furthermore, the police advised him to give proof as per his police proclamation. During cross-examination, he refuted the claim that he had erroneously involved the accused; furthermore, added that he had expressed what had occurred.
3. The other observer Chhaganbhai Vishalabhai said in his questioning that police had perused to him in that morning his assertion recorded by endlessly police advised him to give proof as per what he knew. According to the police statement, he claimed that the police had not instructed him to provide evidence.
4. In this allure it was fought before the Division Seat for the benefit of the blamed appealing party the perusing for the police explanations to the separate observers added up to utilization of police proclamations in spite of the arrangements of S.162(1) of the Cr. P.C. 1973, or “the Code”); as a result, these two witnesses’ entire testimony was inadmissible. Thus resulted in the present suit before Gujarat High Court.

Issues:

1. If a witness’s statement recorded during an investigation under Chapter XII of the Criminal Penal Code is read to him before the witness enters the witness box, is the evidence inadmissible or of no value?

2. Does this violation of Section 152(1) affect the admissibility or probative value of such a witness’s evidence?

3. Is reading over this statement to a witness before entering the witness box a violation of Section 162(1)?

Judgement:

It was observed by the Court that this witness’s testimony does not become inadmissible. Its probative value must be evaluated in light of the particulars of each case. No firm rule can be set out that in all such facilitates the proof of such observer will be of no worth at all. The witness’s review of the police statement prior to entering the box does not constitute a violation of the prohibition in Sec. 162(1). Be that as it may, the reality of perusing of the assertion might influence the probative worth of the proof of the observer. Perusing of such a proclamation to the observer before he enters the case doesn’t add up to utilization of such explanation in spite of Sec. 162(1). The Supreme Court observed that in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P.[1] , the purpose of the main part is to establish a) a general prohibition of using a statement given to the police (see paragraph 16, page 1022). The words “for any purpose” refer to the width or breadth of the bar; but those words must be read in the context in which they appear, together with the proviso and subsection (2).

Conclusion:

This gives us an impression that the provision given in this statute merely puts the court on caution and may necessitate in-depth scrutiny of the evidence. However the evidence on this account cannot be rejected outright. Contradiction arises in case the witness testifies before the court that a certain fact is existed without stating same before police; it is a case of conflict between the testimony before the court and statement made before the police. This is a contradiction. Therefore statement before the police can be used to contradict his testimony before the competent court.

Written by- Gargi Nagpal, IV Semester, Alliance School of Law, Bengaluru

[1]  Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. (1959) AIR 1012, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 875

Admin