Tahsildar Singh and Anr. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 1012

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

TAHSILDAR SINGH AND ANOTHER VS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

CITATION: 1959 AIR 1012, 1959 SCR SUPL. (2) 875

BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 5 MAY, 1959

APPELLANT: TAHSILDAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

LAWS CONCERNED: Section 162 of CrPC read with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Tahsildar Singh is the most prominent judgment in regards to omission and contradictions. The Court has held that the statement of a witness made during the investigation should be in writing otherwise it will have no effect. Moreover, such a statement should not be used for any other purpose than contradicting him in the witness box. It emphasized Section 162 of CrPC read with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. If the statement made before a police officer and a statement made in front of the court is inconsistent then it is considered to be a contradiction.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. A music performance attended by a large number of persons including two police informers Bankey and Asa Ram was going on a platform in front of the house of one Ram Saroop.
2. At that time there was a full moon and the light of a gas lamp and several lanterns. The accused along with 15 or 20 persons suddenly arrived armed with fire arms to kill the informers and, they shouted that no one should run away and advanced firing shots. Two persons were killed on the spot.
3. The culprits turned over the dead bodies and on seeing Bharat Singh’s face they exclaimed that Asa Ram informer had been killed. The appellants and seven others were sent up for trial for this occurrence.
4.  The culprits were members of a notorious gang called the Man Singh’s gang, who, it is alleged, were responsible for many murders and dacoities in and about the aforesaid locality. That gang was in league with another gang known as Charna’s gang operating in the same region. Asa Ram and Bankey had acted as informers against Charna’s gang, and this information led to the killing of Charna.
5. At the trial the defense alleged that the prosecution had developed its case. The police statements of the eye witness did not mention the facts regarding the dead bodies and the presence of the gas lantern, and the defense counsel puts the following two questions with respect to these omissions to the first eye witness produced:
6. “Did you state to the investigating officer that the gang rolled the dead bodies of Nathi, Saktu, and Bharat Singh and scrutinized them and did you tell him that the face of Asa Ram resembled with that of the deceased Bharat Singh?”
7. “Did you state to the investigating officer about the presence of the gas lantern?”
8. The sessions judge disallowed the questions and on account of this order similar questions were not put to the other eye witnesses. The sessions judge convicted the appellants under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to death.

LEGAL POINT

1. 145 of Indian Evidence Act, Cross- examination as to previous statements in writing- A witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.
2. Sec 162 provisio (CrPC): Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian evidence act, 1872.
3. Section 162 CrPC Explanation- An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.
4. Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act, though deals with the cross-examination as well as contradiction by cross-examination but when it is used with section 162 CrPC (proviso) it comes up with certain limitation i.e.,
5. Only the statement of a prosecution witness can be used
6. Only if it has been reduced to writing
7. Only a part of the statement recorded can be used
8. Both the statements must be contradictory to each other.

ISSUE AROUSED-

1. According to section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables the prosecution in the re-examination to rely upon any part of the statement used by the defence to contradict a witness, that the accused cannot ask the witness a Single question, which does not amount to contradiction whereas the prosecution, taking advantage of a single contradiction relied upon by the accused, can re-examine the witness in regard to any matter referred to in his cross-examination, whether it amounts to a contradiction or not?
2. Can omission or contradiction be considered identical or not?
3. what are the omissions in the statement before the police which the learned Sessions Judge did not allow the accused to put to the witnesses for contradicting their present version?

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:

The learned Counsel argued before Supreme Court did not argue before the High Court, and, therefore, obviously he is not in a position to assert that the Judges committed a mistake in omitting to consider the argument advanced before them. But he made strenuous attempts before Supreme Court in order to persuade to hold that there must have been a mistake. The learned Counsel had in fact relied upon all the aforesaid omissions in support of his contention that there was development of the case of the prosecution from time to time and therefore he must have also relied upon the said omissions in the context of the statements made under s. 162 of the Code of Criminal ‘Procedure; on the other hand, the fact that the learned Judges considered all the alleged omissions in connection with the said contention and only considered two omissions in regard to the contention based on s. 162 of the Code is indicative of the fact that the learned Counsel, for reasons best known to him, did not think fit to rely upon all the alleged omissions. The last contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Judges of the High Court acted illegally in testing the veracity of the witnesses with reference to the contents of the first information report.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS:

The learned Counsel for the respondent contests this fact and argues that only two omissions, namely, the presence of a gas-lantern and the scrutiny of the dead bodies by the gang, were put in the cross-examination of P. W. 30 and no other omissions were put to him or any other witness, and that indeed the order of the learned Sessions Judge did not preclude him from putting all the omissions to the witnesses and taking the decision of the Judge on the question of their admissibility. He further contends that even before the learned Judges of the High Court the Advocate for the appellants only made a grievance of him; not having been allowed to put the aforesaid two omissions and did not argue that he intended to rely upon other omissions but did not do so as he thought that the learned Sessions Judge would disallow them pursuant to his previous order. 

COURT OBSERVED:

The Court in the case of Tahsildar Singh and Another Vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh held that a statement to the police could be used under section 162 of the code only for the purpose of contradicting a statement in the witness box under the second part of section 145, Evidence Act, but it could not be used for the purpose of cross-examination the witness under the first part of section 145. A statement made to the police but not reduced to writing, could not be used for any purpose, not even for contradiction.That means contradiction should be between what a witness asserted in the witness box and what he stated to the police officer and not between what he said he had stated before the police officer and what he actually made before him.

HELD BY COURT:

Hence, the Supreme Court upheld that the questions that were put by the defence counsel were properly ruled out by the Sessions judge as they did not set up contradictions, but attempted to obtain from the witnesses’ versions of what they had stated to the police which were then to be contradicted and the appeal was dismissed.

CONCLUSION:

The statement of a witness made during the investigation should be in writing otherwise it will have no effect. Such a statement should not be used for any other purpose than contradicting him in the witness box. It emphasized Section 162 of CrPC read with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. If the statement made before a police officer and a statement made in front of the court is inconsistent then it is considered to be a contradiction.

This article is written by Divyanshi Aggarwal of Institute of Management Education (IME) of Chaudhary Charan Singh University an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Admin