In India, Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is relevant to police officers examining witnesses in a case that is being investigated. Any statement made by a witness to a police officer during an investigation is noted down according to Section 161 CrPC. These statements are not admissible in court as evidence, but can be used for the purpose of contradicting any testimony given by the witness at the trial under Section 162 CrPC. They serve only this dual purpose: one to guide the investigation and another for the preparation of charge sheet.

Modern legal practices opt for electronic typing in Section 161 CrPC statements to enhance clarity, accuracy, and documentation ease. This method allows for efficient storage, retrieval, and sharing of information, streamlining investigations. However, meticulous care must be taken to ensure that typewritten statements accurately reflect interview contents, adhering to legal protocols and preserving their evidentiary integrity in criminal proceedings.

A statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not immutable. Circumstances may arise that necessitate the re-recording of the statement. These circumstances could stem from inconsistencies discovered in the initial statement, the emergence of new information, or the need for further interrogation to clarify certain aspects.

Further investigation may reveal the need for additional questioning or clarification on specific points, prompting the re-recording of the statement to gather more comprehensive information. Additionally, legal procedures may demand the re-recording of a statement due to procedural errors in the initial recording or if the statement faces challenges in court.

The integrity and admissibility of evidence dictate that any re-recording of a statement must adhere to legal procedures and safeguards. Furthermore, all subsequent statements, appended to the case file, should be meticulously documented for reference during legal proceedings.

The improper use of statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC by investigating officers poses a grave threat to the integrity of criminal investigations and the pursuit of justice. Investigative manipulation can manifest in various forms: witnesses may be subject to coercion or threats to induce false statements; statements may be fabricated or tampered with to align with a desired narrative or to falsely implicate or absolve suspects; and crucial information may be intentionally omitted to bolster or undermine a case.

Such actions not only compromise the truthfulness of the evidence but also erode public trust in the fairness and impartiality of the legal system. Consequently, it is imperative to establish safeguards and enhance the accountability of investigating officers to prevent and address such misconduct, ensuring the integrity of the justice process.

After recording of the statement of the witness under section 161 CrPC is completed, the investigating officer put their signature after writing ‘recorded by me, read over and admitted to be recorded correctly’. It is alleged that many officers write these statements without examining the witness while sitting at the police station or at their residence according to their own discretion and the contents of the statement are actually not read over to the witness in practice.

During a trial, defence lawyers have the right to cross-examine witnesses, aiming to expose discrepancies between their statements to the police and their testimony in court. This scrutiny helps ensure a fair trial and exposes potential inconsistencies.

cognizant of the possibility of police misconduct and diligently examine investigations, particularly when allegations arise. Grievances against officers can be formally addressed through complaints. Internal investigations within the police force, such as departmental inquiries, are also available to address misconduct allegations. The judiciary has established precedents in dealing with police misconduct cases, underscoring the paramount importance of fair investigative practices.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed the criticality of integrity and accuracy in police investigations. In State of Karnataka v. Shivanna (2014), the court emphasized the significance of impartial investigations. Subsequently, in State of NCT of Delhi v. Mukesh (2017), the importance of accurate documentation of statements was reiterated.

To ensure integrity, audio or video recordings of witness statements are recommended to prevent manipulation. Additionally, regular training and robust oversight mechanisms for police officers can mitigate misconduct.

Section 161 CrPC empowers investigating officers to record statements, but manipulation of these statements can compromise criminal cases. Nonetheless, legal remedies exist to address such misconduct. Independent agencies monitoring police conduct can strengthen accountability. Ensuring fair and transparent investigations is paramount for upholding the rule of law and preserving justice. By implementing measures to prevent and address manipulation in recording of statements of witnesses under section 161 CrPC, the integrity of police investigations can be maintained.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565

Also Read:

• Analysis Of Section 161 CrPc