[Sections 161 and 162, Cr.P.C.]
Joint statement of several witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., copy should be supplied to the accused. PLD 1955 Lah. 59 Malik Bostan Khan v. Crown. (DB) PLD 1953 Daca 19 Sarafat.
Admission of evidence of pointing out by approver of places visited by accused before commission of crime, held section 162, Cr.P.C. not contravened. (FC) PLD 1955 FC 113 Ibrahim Bhak v. Crown.
Evidence of pointing out of accused by witness in an identification test held by police is admissible. (FC) PLD 1955 FC 113 supra also PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 1.
List of stolen property given to police however early in course of investigation held, inadmissible, PLD 1952 Lah. 55 Muhammad Yaqub v. Crown.
Counter F.I.R. made by accused held, admissible. Only statements connected with steps in furtherance of the pending investigation barred. (SC) PLD 1956 SC (Pak.) 238 Shahamal.
Prosecution witnesse's statement in Court assumed to be corroborated by his statement before police. Latter statement must be ruled out of consideration. (FC) PLD 1956 FC 31 Muhammad Ayub v. Crown.
Statement by accused before police during investigation, not indicating that the accused wanted to lodge counter F.I.R. Held, such statement is NOT admissible. PLD 1950 Lah. 364 Amanat Ali v. Crown.
Sec. 162, Cr.P.C. and accused. Section 162, Cr.P.C. applies to the statements of witnesses only and not to the statements by the accused. It does not override Sec. 27, Evidence Act. AIR 1926 Lah. 88 Rannun v. K.E.
Omission in statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. cannot be used in favour of prosecution and only the accused can claim to use the previous statement of a prosecution witness for the purpose specified in section 162, Cr.P.C. while the prosecution cannot use it for any purpose when a witness has been declared hostile. PLD 1957 Lah. 519. Ghulam Haider. Contradictions between witness's statement before police and at trial not to be lightly ignored. Weight to be attached to contradictions depends upon nature of discrepancy. Omission in statement to police; the Court to decide whether the omission amounts to contradiction. Witness should be allowed to be cross-examined on such omission. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 373. Fazla.
Statements excluded from inquiry or trial under section 162, Cr.P.C. are those made in respect of any offence under investigation at the time, when such statements are made. PLD 1958 Kar. 449 Allah Ditto.
Zimins of case different from one under trial are not barred by section 162, Cr.P.C. (DB) PLD 1958 Lah. 242 Rang Ali. (FB) PLD 1978 Lah. 523 State v. Z.A. Bhutto.
Statements recorded by police during investigation of an offence not being tried are admissible if not barred by the Evidence Act. AIR 1936 Cal. 359 also AIR 1936 Lah. 359.
After 10 days statements made to police by eye-witnesses held, unsafe to rely upon. NLR 1987 Cr. 652 Hakam Khan.
Late recording of statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. of a witness reduces its value to nil unless there is plausible explanation of the delay. 1996 SCMR 1553, Abdul Khaliq.
Delay in recording statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. by police with no explanation for delay ruled out of consideration.(D.B.) PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Q) 801, Nek Muhammad v. Sardar Abdul Karim etc.
Supplementary statements of eye-witnesses recorded after 24 hours held, supplementary statements being after thought need not be given any weight when according to law supplementary statements cannot be recorded. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 69, Muhammad Hanif.
Three weeks' delay in making statement before police, held this belated disclosure by a solitary witness with no other evidence to implicate the accused calls for further inquiry under section 497 (2),Cr.P.C. entitling the accused to bail under section 302/34, PPC. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 109 Liaqat Ali etc.
Omission to supply to accused at trial, copies of statements of witnesses recorded in police investigation under section 161, Cr.P.C. Copies supplied at hearing of appeal. Held, the irregularity was curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. when no prejudice is proved to have been caused to the accused (SC) PLD 1960 SC 8 Faiz Ahmed.
Non-supply of copies u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. When no prejudice caused to the accused, witnesses need not be recalled, nor their evidence to be excluded or retrial to be ordered. PLD 1979 SC 741 Z.A. Bhutto. PLJ 1979 SC 51.
Supply of copies u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. once again to the accused would cause no prejudice to the State. Revision accepted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 310, Muhammad Rafiq.
Statement of injured person recorded by police under section 161, Cr.P.C. and the person dying later on. Such statement admissible as dying declaration. (DB) PLD 1961 Dacca I Shahidullah Khan.
Non-substantive evidence. Statements of witness recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence. Such statements can only be used under section 162, Cr.P.C. to contradict such witnesses in the manner provided under section 145 of Evidence Act. (SC) PLD 1965 SC 188 Nazir Hussain v. Muhammad Shah etc.
Supply of statements. Accused is entitled to get the copies of the statements of not only prosecution witnesses but of all witnesses examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. as provided under section 251-A, Cr.P.C. PLD 1966 BJ 30 and 1969 P.Cr.LJ 568 Noor Muhammad 1978 P.Cr.LJ 10 Qamar-uz-Zaman. PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Lah.) 67.
Statement u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. copies are to be given to the accused whether the witnesses support the prosecution case or not. PLJ 1979 Cr.C. (Lah.) 381 Nasarullah.
FIR can only be used to contradict its maker. It cannot be used as substantie evidence to belie statements of prosecution witness. (SC) PLD 1964 (SC) 26 Siraj Din v. Kala etc.
Statement under section 162 may not be a complete statement recording every word uttered by witness. It may be a mere memorandum of what the witness had said to the police officer. Such a statement is available for the purpose of contradicting the witness. AIR 1936 Nag. 249 Vishwanath v. Emperor. AIR 1945 Cal. 159 Emperor v. Ajit Kumar.
Statement drawn from notes by investigating officer cannot be relied upon. (FB) PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Lah.) 234 State v. Z.A. Bhutto. PLD 1978 Lah. 523.
Statement of witness as a note recorded by police, stating that the statement of the complainant was correct, held, a copy should be given to the accused even though the statement was joint and the accused had to produce it in a complaint against him. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 937 Muzaffar Khan.
Accused entitled to get copies of statements of PWs u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. recorded in zimnies in detail or in gist form. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 306, Nazar Muhammad v. Mushtaq Ahmed etc. = PLD 1996 Lah 177.
Statement of P.Ws. recorded as a note by investigating officer as joint statement owning the contents of complainant's statement. Held, accused entitled to get a copy of such statement. PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Lah.) 225 Muzaffar Khan.
Statement by accused is also covered under section 162. The words of the section lead to the conclusion that the statement is not admissible even when made by the person ultimately accused. (PC) AIR 1939 PC 47 Pakala Narain v. Emperor. 1978 P.Cr.LJ 10 Qamar-ur-Zaman. PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Lah.) 92.
Statements of witnesses not recorded by police. Statement of witnesses whose police statements are not available, they should be received with caution because of the possibility that if copies of the separate statements of such witness to the police had been available they might have damaged the prosecution case irreparably. When in a trial such statements are not produced or if produced are of no value because they are merely a digest, the Court should disregard the evidence of such witnesses. (FB) 50 Cr.LJ 719 (All.) Shyam Lal Sharma.
Statement of a witness not recorded u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. when he appears as prosecution witness in Court, his statement is not to be relied upon. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Lah.) 473, Dilshad.
Prosecution cannot confront its own witnesses or the defence witnesses with their statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Section 154 of Evidence Act is subject to section 162, Cr.P.C. 52 Cr.LJ 354. Awal Din's case. (DB) 47, Cr.LJ 780 = AIR 1947 Pat. 107.
Use of police statement by a witness in witness-box. When a Magistrate or a Presiding Judge discovers that a witness has made a material use of such a statement when he was giving evidence at the trial, it is his duty under the section to disregarded the evidence of such a witness as inadmissible. (PC) AIR 1947 PC 75 Zahir-ud-Din v. Emperor.
Denial of police statement. When a witness denies in the witness-box of making a statement to the police. It is inadmissible against or in favour of the accused. (PC) 50 Cr.LJ 340. (PC) Wali Muhammad's case.
When investigation is mala fide. Statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. may not be relied upon when evidence on file shows the investigation to be mala fide. Witness's statement in the Court relied upon. (DB) PLD 1969 Lah. 114 Ghulam Muhammad etc.
Supply of copies to the accused. (Sections 161 and 251-A, Cr.P.C). Provision of copies under section 251-A, Cr.P.C. is directory and not mandatory. Non-compliance does not vitiate proceedings or trial unless the accused is prejudiced by the omission. (DB) PLD 1968 Lah. 514 Abdur Rehman.
Confrontation procedure. When a witness is confronted with a portion of his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. and he repudiates that portion the police officer who recorded his statement should be questioned specifically with regard to that portion and not with regard to the particular document representing the statement of the witness as a whole. Such practice of asking whether the whole document is correct, condemned. (DB) ILR 20 Lah. 305. The Crown v. Jiwan Das.
Statement made to and recorded by Thaneder (S.H.O.) not produced in Court. Defence is entitled to ask the Court to draw inference adverse to prosecution. Benefit of doubt given to the accused. (SC) 1972 SCMR 651 Sher Bahadur.
Statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. are not evidence. Omission of a fact from the statement does not amount to a contradiction. An omission of a fact from the statement is only of value if it is of such importance that the witness would have almost certainly made it and the police officer would have certainly recorded it had it been made. The practice of proving such omission in statements is generally to be discouraged. (DB) 1971 P.Cr.LJ 275 Ekabbar Ali.
Statement to investigating officer. It is illegal to allow investigating police officer to state what was stated to him during investigation and by whom (DB) AIR 1926 Lah. 367 Bahadar Singh.
Women to be examined in their house. It is unusual course that police should take a number of women to the police station on the pretext of examination. The examination of the women might have been conducted at their houses rather than at police station. (DB) 2 Cr.LJ 51 Haladhar Bahimji v. Sub-Inspector Police. 9 CWN 199.
Statement under section 162, signed by the witness and made use of in the witness-box, such evidence to be disregarded. (PC) 28 Cr.LJ 679 Zahir-ud-Din v. K.E.
Statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. signed by P.Ws. are not inadmissible merely because of those having been signed by P.Ws. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 615 Ghulam Shabbir.