 aviation expert to introduce the topic as such, what do you say? Good evening everybody, welcome for today's session. We have with us, rather we are in the esteemed company of Justice V. Ram Kumar, the former judge of the Kerala High Court and as he himself claims that he is a self-confessed criminal, so who better than to teach us the nonsense of the criminal law and with us section 162, 161, 162 and 145 of the CRPC. What is your evidence act? Evidence act, sorry, of the evidence act and my apologies and without wasting much time, I hand over the mic to Justice Ram Kumar so we can start the session. Thank you Mr. K. V. J. Rao. Sir, I will read section 161 of CRPC examination. I will say when I mention, only when I mention. By way of an introduction I may say that confusion still prevails among the bench and the bar alike regarding the applicability of the statutory interredict under section 162-1 of CRPC and the extent to which the bar there under is lifted for a better understanding of the mechanics of the embargo under section 162-1 CRPC it is relevant to consider three important statutory provisions. They are section 161, section 162 itself and of the CRPC and section 145 of the evidence act. Now we will first read section 161. May I request Mr. Rao to read that? Sure, sir. What is a contradiction? As envisaged by section 162 of the CRPC and how to prove it and what is its evidentiary value? Section 161 of the CRP reads examination of witnesses by police. Any police officer making an investigation under this chapter or any police officer not below such rank as the state government may by general or special order describe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Two, such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer. Other than question the answers to which would have a tendency to expose himself to a criminal charge or to a penalty of offiture. Subsection 3, the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section and if he does so he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. Provided that statement made under this subsection may also be recorded by audio, video, electronic means. Provided further that the statement of a woman against whom an offense under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B and section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Court, 45 of 1860 is alleged to have been committed or attempted shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman police officer. See the beauty of this section, a police officer may orally examine any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. It does not use the word witness. That is why the interpreting this section courts have taken the view that any person acquainted with these facts and circumstances of the case not only include a witness but also even an accused. Accused is the best person who is acquainted with these facts and circumstances of the case. Then after oral exam while orally examining or questioning such witness, witness is bound to answer truly. He is expected to tell the truth not only to the court even to the police officer. See the beauty of this section and the officer may reduce the statement into writing. Yes. And in the case of rape and other erotic offenses, a woman police officer or a woman officer is required to orally examine such a victim. Then we come to section 162. 162, sir. I mean, before reading the section, a wise man once said, I always tell the truth. Why? Because number one, I need not remember. Number two, there is least possibility of contradictions. So today's topic itself is contradictions. So section 162, statements to police not to be signed, use of statements in evidence. No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this chapter. Shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it, nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose. Save us here and after provided at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offense under investigation at the time when such statement was made, provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial, whose statement has been reduced into writing as a force. 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. And when any part of the statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the reexamination of such witness, but for the purpose only for of explaining any matter referred to in his cross examination, sub clause 2. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provision of clause 1 of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 or to effect the provisions of section 27 of that act. An explanation is added. An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in subsection 1 may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such permission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact. See, the entire thrust of this section is on the statement made by a person, the police officer conducting investigation. We have seen under section 161, any police officer conducting an investigation under chapter 12 may orally examine any person and that person needs to answer truly. And then you get section 162. See the beauty of this section is the whole thrust is on the statement made to a police officer, not to the statement made in the court. The entire thrust of this section is to statement made to a police officer, the extent to which that statement can be used etc. Yes, now we come to next 145 of the Evidence Act which is a section which can be made use of for eliciting a contradiction referred to in the proviso to section 162 once here. Yes, Mr. Prem, you can read. I will read section 145 in the Indian Evidence Act. Johnny Unmute, 1872. Cross examination as to the previous statements in writing. A witness may be cross examined as to the previous statements made by him in writing or reduced in 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 which are used for the purposes of contradicting. See the section 145 of the Evidence Act is in two limbs. Both limbs refer to cross examinee to the witness. But if you want to elicit a contradiction from any previous statement of the witness, the second part of section 145 is to be used for doing that especially when the proviso to section 162 once specifically says if a person examined by a police officer during investigation, you can use the statement only for eliciting a contradiction. No other purpose. Corroboration? No. Yes, now we come to the questionnaire. See, as I used to always say, don't consider me as an expert in criminal law. I am only a facilitator. My job is to, I am willing to share my knowledge and experience with every one of you in the expectation of learning a lot from you also. Therefore, I personally feel that any law is better understood when actually applied to concrete fact situations. That is how you apply the law. There is no point in my reading the abstract law and then going away. Therefore, that explains these questions. If you apply the law to these questions, you get to learn the law better. Yes, question number one. What is meant by a contradiction as generally understood? See, as generally understood, what do you mean by contradiction? He contradicted. Of course, I had to, I slightly contradicted. Contradiction means a refutation, a conduct, a conduct opposed to or inconsistent with an earlier statement made by the witness. It can be refutation, denial, disagreement, conflict, mismatch or a conduct which is discrepant, divergent or at variance with an earlier conduct or statement. That is the general, that is what we mean by contradiction as generally understood. Same thing we apply in the criminal trial also. We will soon see that section 162 is also on similar lines. Yes, now we will pass on to question number two. You want me to read it out, sir? Yeah, I will. No issue. What exactly is a contradiction as envisaged by the provisional to section 162-1, CRPC and how does it arise? Now we come to what a contradiction is as per CRPC. See, when a witness deposes or give evidence before a court upon oath, he is expected to tell the truth in a court of law. We have already seen under section 161-2, even before a police officer, he is expected to answer truly. Therefore, when the police officer, supposing a contrary to what a person told the police officer during investigation, the same person gives a diametrically opposite statement during trial when he is examined as a witness before the court, then we usually call it a contradiction. It is beautifully explained by the Supreme Court in Chaudhary Ramji Bai, Narasimh Bai vs. State of Gujarat, 2004, Volume 1, SEC 184. Laikwai is a witness who makes a particular previous statement before a court, would have omitted to say something before the police officer, which was also relevant. He makes a positive statement while giving evidence before a court, but before that he was questioned by the police officer. He might have omitted to make a relevant statement before the police officer, but he makes a positive statement before the court. That is considered to be an omission and if it is a relevant or material omission touching upon the factor issue, then it is always called an omission amounting to a contradiction. There can be a contradiction of an earlier statement and a diametrically opposite subsequent statement, express contradiction. Then there can be an omission amounting to contradiction in the form of a relevant fact omitted to be mentioned to the police officer, but he mentions in the court. This is called the omission. Now what exactly is a contradiction has been beautifully explained by a Sixth Judges' Constitution bench in the famous case in Thasildar Singh versus state of UP. Here, 1959, Supreme Court, 10, 12, Sixth Judges, the majority judgments being spoken through Justice Rao, Subbar Rao, which is K. Subbar Rao, who is an idol of my idol. In fact, so many great judgments he has rendered. He has pronounced the majority. In fact, there was only a disagreement, only with regard to a minor aspect. Otherwise, all the Sixth Judges were in unison on the law later. The two judges disagreed only on a limited question, which we will soon see. Now the beauty, how, what do you call, when do you call there's a contradiction? If the previous statement of the witness before the police officer during investigation and the statement of the witness before court during trial are so irreconcilable or so inconsistent that each of those statements cannot coexist. Both cannot coexist. His earlier statement before the court and his subsequent statement, I'm sorry, his earlier statement before the police officer during investigation and his subsequent statement before court are so diametrically opposing or so irreconcilable or inconsistent that both cannot coexist. See how beautifully defined the expression contradiction, which is not there in the CRPZ, the judicial definition of contradiction. Para 19 of Thasildar Singh's case. Yes, now we go to question number three. No, you want me to read it out. Prem sir, you want me to read it out? Okay. Now, before going to question number three, Ramkumar sir, we got the word contradiction. Even before Thasildar Singh, you have the word contradiction. 52, sit down. 155. Ah, yes. Of the evidence act. Yes, 553. 553. 3, 3, yes. That is inconsistent with the previous statement. Yes. I'm going to question number three. It's not a contradiction when a cross-examining counsel asks a witness to a leading question whether he told the police officer something, which is not there in his 161 statement and upon the witness answering in deformity, then confronting the witness with the fact that such an answer is absent in his 161 statement. This is a usual mistake committed by different lawyers. See, contradiction is between what the witness actually told the police officer and recorded by the police officer and what the witness subsequently asserted during the trial of the case. These are, as between these statements, you come across a contradiction. But very often trial lawyers will ask the witness something which is not there in his 161 statement. Did you not tell the police officer that such and such thing happened? Then being a leading question, the witness would be inclined to answer in the affirmative and the witness answers in the affirmative. Then the cross-examining counsel will say, but did you tell the police? It is not there. He's asking something which is not there. Then did you tell the police? He cannot remember. You will tell the court. See, he did not tell the police officer during the investigation. This is not contradiction. This is not contradiction. Contradiction under section 145 of the Evidence Act. It's a beautiful sentence by Yatch Subarao. Contradiction under section 145 of the Evidence Act should be between what the witness asserted in the witness box and what he stated before the police officer during the stage of investigation and not between what the witness says he told the police and what he actually told the police. See the beauty. See the difference. Not contradiction is between what the witness actually told the police officer and recorded by him and what he subsequently asserted before the court and not between what the witness says he told the police and what he actually told the police. It beautifully explains this concept. Therefore, very often different lawyers will ask this question. Did you not tell the police something which is not there in the 151 statement? And witness may say, yes, sir. I said, but you don't appear to have said so for the police officer. This is not contradiction. Kindly take note of this. This passage is obtained in Para 13 of Taasildar Singh's case. In fact, on the question of contradiction, omission, etc. Taasildar Singh is the Bible. Everyone who practices on the criminal side should go through Taasildar Singh's case. Weird by word. Question number four. Is it not the police under a duty to record section 161 statement of every witness examined by the prosecution? You much have seen while reading section 161. The police officer may. So it is not mandatory. It is not mandatory. But then that is what the Supreme Court said in Para 156 of Manu Sharma versus NCT of Delhi 2010 volume 6 SCC page one. The investigating officer has got the discretion to decide whether the statement of a witness orally examined by him should be recorded or not. Subair TP versus there's a Kerala High Court decision division bench versus Sabu alias union of India 2020 criminal law journal 3157 2020 criminal law journal 3157 division bench of the Kerala High Court. Then in in one decision of the Supreme Court, they held that non-recording of the statement under section 161 CRPC by the police officer has absolutely no bearing on the testimony of the witness in court because what is substantive evidence is the testimony of the witness in court. Therefore, merely because his statement was not recorded by a police officer, you can't say that therefore his testimony should not be looked into. His testimony in court during trial is the substantive evidence. Therefore, but I would say that every police officer should in case a witness is being examined by the prosecution, his 161 statement should be recorded. He cannot exercise his discretion by saying that I have got the discretion to record or not because of the word employed is me. No, he should record the statement because otherwise the accused who is on the other side will be at a disadvantage. He will not be able to engage the effectively cross-examine the witness. Then we pass on to question number five. Even long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive in implicating the accused and have even a plausible reason as to why the FY statement was lodged belatedly. Can this be accepted as a sound proposition of law? See, very often when a witness who had seen an occurrence, who is an eyewitness, who had seen the occurrence, if he does not open his mouth for a considerable long time, court generally looked down upon him or looked the prosecution case suspect because here is a witness who claims to have seen the occurrence, but he does not open his mouth for a pretty long time. Therefore, normally courts do not view him with a suspicion, view the prosecution case also with a suspicion. But there can be very, very cogent explanation for a person not opening his mouth. It all depends on the, in fact, delay by itself is not fatal in any jurisdiction, whether it is preventive detention or whether it is criminal trial or a civil case, except when under limitation of section five, when the original suit itself, original proceedings itself cannot be, delay cannot be condoned under by virtue of section five. A barring such instances, delay is not always fatal. In fact, in 87, Supreme Court, I don't remember the page number, Supreme Court making one of earlier decisions said that if every day's delay has to be, because that was the interpretation placed on section five, you have to explain every day's delay. Supreme Court itself posed the question, if every day's delay has to be explained, why not every hour, every minute, every second? So that is why the delay by itself is not fatal. It is unexplained delay, which is fatal. If there is an explanation for coming for the delay, the delay cannot be fatal. You may refer to AIR 2005, Supreme Court, 2989, 2989, that is Harbin's scour versus state of Haryana. We'll pass on to question number six. 87 was that land acquisition. I can do that. What are the tests applied by the court when there is a delay in recording the statements under section 161 CRP? Here I wish to give you a few citations so that you can apply them in appropriate cases. Delay can be fatal, delay need not be fatal. Depending on the facts of the case, you can apply these citations. If a person who is an important witness does not open his mouth for a long time, his evidence is always looked upon with suspicion. The delay in recording the statement under section 161 CRPT of such a witness is said to be dangerous. The citation is AIR 1988, Supreme Court, 1883, Kehar Singh versus Delhi administration. This is the Indira Gandhi assassination case. Again, same thing was repeated. If the statement of an eyewitness is not recorded on the date of incident or within reasonable time, thereupon, it has to be viewed with caution. Prem Narayan versus state of Madhya Pradesh. 2007, volume 15 SCC 485. Again, Supreme Court said delayed recording of statement of witnesses who were or could not be available. When the investigating officer visited the scene of crime or soon thereafter cast doubt on the prosecution case because he is a witness who was available. Still, his interrogation was not recorded. His statement was not recorded. It casts a doubt on the prosecution case. Harbir Singh versus Shushpal, AIR 2006, Supreme Court 4958. Then delayed examination of witnesses is normally looked upon. But each case has to be considered on its own facts. There is a rider applied, Supreme Court. This is a case which went from Kerala. In fact, I was a party to the division bench ruling in Kerala. Achyarambath Pradeepan versus state of Kerala. 2006, volume 13 SCC 643. There is the Jai Krishan murder case. A school teacher was brutally assassinated in front of 40 students in the classroom. Then the next other proposition, delay in recording the statement of a witness can be justified in the case of death of his or her near-relationship. For the first time, you come across a reason for the delay. There is a death of his or her near-relationship. And on account of the incident, a witness who has lost his or her close relative will be in immeasurable grief and will have to be allowed time to compose himself or herself. A close relative, he or she lost a close relative on account of the occurrence, on account of the murder or whatever it be. Then such a person will have to recover from the shock. Therefore, some time will have to be allowed. This is one of the same Nira Gandhi assassination case. This is also stated. K. Har Singh versus state of Delhi administration. A year 1988, Supreme Court, 1883. Then there is no universal application. Then Supreme Court goes on adding. There is no rule of universal application that if there is delay in examination of a particular witness, the prosecution version becomes suspect. No universal rule. If the explanation offered for such delay is plausible and the court accepts the same, there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the court believing the witness. The witness has been believed by the lower court and if the delayed interrogation is explained, delay for the delayed interrogation is explained. There is no reason for the court to disbelieve the witness. That is, Bauderaj versus state German cashmere. A year 2002 Supreme Court, 3164. Again A year 2005 Supreme Court, page 1000. There are any number of rulings on that point. Then comes another. Where the accused raises the plea that there was unusual delay in examination of a witness. The first, the, apart from cross-examining the witness on that point, the defense lawyer should cross-examine the investigating officer also as to the reason for the delayed interrogation. He has to be specifically asked as to the reason for the delayed examination. Bauderaj versus German cashmere. A year 2002 Supreme Court, 3164. Again the same citation. Then unless the investigating officer is categorically questioned regarding the delayed examination, the accused cannot thereafter put forward a ground of delay in interrogation. See, see the way Supreme Court is proceeding. Unless the investigating officer is specifically asked about the reason for the delayed interrogation, you cannot thereafter take out this contention or come out with a contention that here is a case of delayed interrogation. You will have to raise that point. You will have to specifically ask the investigating officer why, how do you explain the delayed interrogation of this particular witness? Of course he has supported the prosecution but you committed a delay in interrogating him. What do you, what explanation do you have to offer? Unless you, the defense does not ask the investigating officer, the defense cannot thereafter turn around and say that there's a delayed interrogation. The citations are AIR 2004 Supreme Court, 1053. Then 2010 Volume 2 SEC 353. There are other rulings also. Then Supreme Court said delay in recording the statement is undoubtedly a circumstance which has to be taken into consideration. But at the same time courts must be reasonable also and should see as to whether late recording of the statements in the dead of the night. That is a tender boy of age 13. The, the, it was argued that this boy was not questioned in the, the current replacement night. The, the, the boy should have been questioned in the dead of the midnight, the dead of the night. Supreme Court said, how do you explain? You can't, you can't be unreasonable. You can't be unreasonable. A tender boy of 13, you are, you are attributing motives to the investigating officer in not recording the statement of a tender boy at the dead of the night, midnight. No, they, they said that it cannot be the, the, the use then Supreme Court takes judicial notice of the usual apathy of the police to record statements in late hours. That is also taken note of by the Supreme Court. In one case Supreme Court went to the extreme by saying that when the delay in questioning the witness has been explained, once there is an explanation forthcoming, whatever be the length of delay, the court can act on the testimony of the witness if it is found to be cogent and credible. See, going further, Mohammed Khalid versus state of West Bengal, 2002 volume 7 SCC 334. Likewise, you can come across so many decisions where the Supreme Court looked down upon the delay and also Supreme Court accepted the explanation for the delay in the, in the related interrogation of a witness. It all depends on the explanation if any forecoming. Delay by itself is not fatal. This unexplained delay which is fatal. Please bear that in mind. Question number seven. Can a person shown as an accused and not a witness in the FIR be questioned under section 161 of the CRPC? Yes, I already answered this question. The wording used by section 161 is that the police officer conducting an investigation may orally examine any person who is supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, which need not necessarily be a witness. Accused is the best person who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. That section includes accused also. Of course, interpreting section 160, there's a 3-Jet bench of the Supreme Court wherein a judge from Madras, a judge from Madras criticized the Madras state government in laying down certain guidelines to say that an accused, a lady accused person cannot be summoned to the police station. The Leonard J. said that 160 does not use the word accused at all. It only uses the word witness. But forgetting the fact that person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case will include an accused also. That the NMT joy immaculate is that decision. Now, the citation for including an accused person also within the basket of section 161 is Mahabhir Mandal v. state of Bihar, AR 1972 Supreme Court, 1331, 3 judges. Then Nandini Satpati v. P. L. Dhani, Justice Krishna here, AR 1978 Supreme Court, 1025, again 3 judges. Then Deepak Bhai Jagdhichandra Patel v. Gujarat, state of Gujarat, AR 2019 Supreme Court, 3363 where it has been observed that a person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case within the meaning of section 161 includes an accused person as well. Question 8. The next question deals with the consequence of non-examination of the police officer who recorded the FI statement and also the non-examination of the investigating officer. The question is, is it fatal in all cases? It cannot be fatal in all cases. Supposing an important contradiction or an important omission is not to be elicited, is not material contradiction or material omission does not arise in that case and the non-examination of the investigating officer by itself may not be fatal. That's what the Supreme Court cautioned in AR 2004 Supreme Court, 4333. It is not always fatal. There can be situations where non-examination may not be fatal. 2004 Supreme Court, 4333. Question number 9. In a case where the statement of an important witness recorded under section 161 of the CRPC has not been made available to the accused, can it result in prejudice leading to the conviction being initiated? See the leading case on this point is a case by the Privy Council which is more popular in the context of confession. Whenever we mention about confession in law, we generally cite this decision. Pulikuri Kothaya versus Emperor, AR 1947 Privy Council, 67, 4 law laws decided that case. But this decision is also an authority on the question. In fact, Para 6 of this decision says that if the statement recorded by a police officer is not made available to the accused and inference of prejudice is irresistible and inference of prejudice is irresistible, is the observation by the Privy Council. This was followed by a decision bench of the Supreme Court. Kerala, I quote also in Baiju versus state of Kerala, 2019, 4 KLT 294 corresponding to ILR 2019, 4 Kerala 56. But normally when a case comes up for trial before a court session, take it that it is a murder case. In a case comes up for trial before a court session and if the defense lawyer complains that the 161 statement of a particular witness or important witness was not furnished to the accused, normally we look upon, we examine the 207 compliance. The magistrate might have complied with section 207 and the accused or his council might have made an endorsement. I got all the records, all the following records. There might have been cattle out and he must have endorsed and received a copy. But then the court did not be on hypertechnicality. If in a given case the council complains that a particular statement of a witness was not furnished to him, the court can always ask the prosecutor to furnish a copy because trial has to be a fair trial. Therefore, nothing wrong. Even if the accused had been furnished, he might have misplaced it or he might not have been furnished. Anyway, let us not take chances. So the court can, session court can always ask the probably prosecutor to provide a copy to the defense lawyer so that maybe it may dislocate the trial for one day or not. The witness can be bound over to the next day and the copy can be given on the same day. That is how we resolve such objections during trial. I had very often, in several instances I had such occasions and this is what I used to do anyway. But there I have come across judges who are very technical in saying that no, you cannot complain. There is your written endorsement that you got copies of all records. Now you cannot complain. Your attempt may be to dislocate the trial. No, I will not allow that. Why should the judges take such a technical stand? Ask the prosecutor to give a copy. There ends the matter. Yes. Question 10. Does the word statement, Akrangian section 162 C-RPC, include signs and gestures? Yes. Statement under section 162 includes, whether it includes signs and gestures. In the case of a deafened dumb, he can only show signs and gestures and the court or the police officer will have to employ the services of an interpreter. There is a Kerala decision, 1981, Kerala General, 1155. Then Supreme Court has also articulated on that. A year 1955 Supreme Court, 104. Again A year 1956 Supreme Court, 526. Yes. Question 11. It is said that section 145 of the Evidence Act is in two parts. If so, what is the difference between the two parts? Yes. We have already seen, when we read section 145, it is a section, it has two limbs. Both limbs refer to cross-examination of a witness with regard to his previous statement in writing. But if the cross-examination is of such nature that you have to elicit a contradiction, contradiction in his previous statement, you have to call into aid the latter wing, second limb of section 145 of the Evidence Act. Because section 145, second limb alone mentions about the eliciting of a contradiction by the procedure is also mentioned there. Now, because in a police investigated case, the provisor to section 162-1 says that the statement can be, the only purpose for which the statement can be used is for eliciting a contradiction of a witness who was questioned by the police. Therefore, in fact, it is here that we will come to that next question. The two judges, minority judges differed. Yes. Question 12. Which part of section 145 of the Evidence Act is applicable for undertaking a prosecution witness under the provisor to section 162-CRPC? The second limb of section 145 is the provision which has to be pressed into service. Because that provision alone says, if it is C-section, a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to the matters in question without such writing being shown to him or being proved. But if it is intended to contradict him by such 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. It is this latter part which is relevant for eliciting a contradiction in his previous statement and subsequent statement. It is here that the, in fact, the six judges constituted BP Sinha, El Kapoor, AK Sarkar, Subbar Rao. They formed the majority judges and the leading judgment was given by Justice K. Subbar Rao. The minority judges were Justice Hidai Tulla and Jaffer Imam. They gave a minority view, dissenting view, only on this aspect. That is, 145 can be, according to them, can be made use of for cross-examining the witness. The first limb of 145 also can be made use of for cross-examining a witness with regard to his previous statement. But the majority to which I also subscribe by Justice Subbar Rao clearly said that in view of the wording of the provisional to section 162-1, the only use to which the previous statement of a witness can be used is only for eliciting a contradiction in the manner provided under section 145. What is the manner provided for eliciting a contradiction? Second limb. Therefore, second limb alone can be made use of. Very beautifully stated. Yes. Next question is in continuation of that. It is, is it not permissible under the proviso to section 162-1 CRPC to cross-examine a prosecution witness under the first part of section 145 of the evidence act? Yes, no. We have already answered that. The latter part of section 145 alone can be used, latter limb of section 145 alone can be used for cross-examination for the purpose of eliciting a contradiction. But if it is no, a contradiction is to be elicited, he can be cross-examined. No problem. Right. Yes. Paira 13 of Taasildar Singh's case. Question 14. What is the procedure for marking a contradiction? Yes. Section 45, the portion which I read, latter wing of the second limb of section 145, itself gives the procedure for eliciting a, marking a contradiction. But the entire procedure is not there. What is legally required is mentioned there. 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. So very often, this has been beautifully explained in Paira 19 of Taasildar Singh's case. On contradiction and omission Taasildar Singh's case is the Bible, is the leading case, beautifully stated. But then in actual practice, what happens is, supposing the witness says something, asserts something in court. Contrary to what he stated before the police, then his attention must be drawn to that earlier part, recorded by the police officer. Because why virtue of section 162-1? There is a total bar. 162-1 contains a total embargo against user of that statement, except for the purpose provided under the provisional, in the case of a prosecution witness. If the witness has been called by the prosecution, that embargo, interdict under section 162-1, is lifted and that too partially. And again, that too for the limited purpose of eliciting a contradiction, as in the manner provided under section 145 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the counsel should, supposing it is a defense counsel who is eliciting a contradiction, counsel should ask the witness, did such a thing happened there? You have said a particular manner of the occurrence. Did such a thing happened there? Yes. Did you have such a case in the police? On the contrary, did you have a different version before the police? He may say, no, I did not say so. Or he may say, I don't remember. I cannot say. All these are amounting to denial. Therefore, the attention of the witness is to be drawn to that earlier part of the contradictory statement. To say that, see, you have, when you are interrogated by the police officer, you seem to have stated so. Read out that portion, contradictory portion, which is diametrically opposed to the statement by the witness in court. You read out to him, what have you got to say? This is a facet of audio altruism pattern. No person shall be condemned unheard. You were before condemning him. What is the manner of condemning? You are going to discredit him. You are going to discredit him because of the contradiction. When a person contradicts with his earlier statement or contradicts with his same statement, in the same, different parts of the same statement, you are saying that this person cannot be trusted. This person cannot be trusted. He is contradicting. He is pre-vericating. Therefore, he goes on changing. So, how can a person, how can a court trust such a person? Therefore, you are going to elicit a contradiction. So, you will have to ask him his explanation. What have you got to say? The police have recorded that you made such a statement. You can either say, I admit that. Of course, I gave a different version here. I admit in the earlier contradiction. Or he may say, no, I can't remember. Or I cannot say. He may say that, no, I am very sure that I did not say so before the police officer. He has written a false statement in the 161 statement. Then only you can, the contradiction can be supposing it is a case of denial by the witness. I did not tell so before the police officer. Then the defense lawyer can provisionally mark the contradiction. Very often what is happening, of course, in Kerala we used to tell the judges that when you are marking a contradiction of a defense elicited by a defense lawyer, a witness might have been questioned by more than one investigating officer. Two or three, therefore, there might have been a further investigation by a crime branch or still further investigation by CBI, etc. So, when a particular officer had interrogated him and you are eliciting a contradiction in that statement, and since it is a defense eliciting a contradiction, please give a marking D1. The contradiction is provisionally marked as D1, subject to proof. Why do you say subject to proof? You are not proving this. You are only bringing forth on record. But then proof comes only when the investigating officer who recorded this particular contradiction tells the court, maybe subsequently, that when I interrogated him, this particular witness gave this particular contradictory statement. He cannot say it is contradiction because investigating officer does not know what the witness told in court. It becomes a contradiction because the witness gives a totally diametrically opposite statement in court. So, the witness is first asked, without asking the witness, you cannot prove a contradiction. Therefore, you are marking the contradiction provisionally subject to proof. All these statements, all these procedures are stated in Dasildar Singh's case. Beautiful statement because they had the practical insight. The judges had the practical insight. You should place yourself in the trial court. You are the trial judge. Defense lawyer is eliciting a contradiction. How to mark it? Marking, etc., will be in the deposition. In the deposition, the judge will have to say, the judge will have to either the defense, when the defense lawyer reads the police statement, contradictory to the statement in court. It should be discernible from the deposition of the witness that the court applied his mind. Therefore, the witness denies. Then the earlier statement is read over to the witness. It should be recorded. In fact, the earlier statement should be recorded. But in Kerala, Dushan Benjad by Justice Butt and all, they have held that since the overworked session judges need not incorporate the entire statement because it's a time-consuming process. You are in the midst of a trial. If the court go on recording each and every statement from without any dotted lines, it will consume a lot of time completing the examination. Therefore, some judges have taken the view that it is enough that the first few words are written and then put dotted lines and use the last word. But then the judge should ensure that the entire statement was read over to the witness and the witness denies. Then you are provisionally marking it as exhibit D1. Supposing the same witness was interrogated by another investigating officer, then you can mark it as D2. The same interrogating officer, if there are more than one contradiction, D1, D1A, D1B, D1C. Second interrogating officer, D2, D2A, D2B. This is how we have advised the trial judges to proceed so that the moment you see D1, you can say that it is one investigating officer. Contradictions are from the same investigating officer. Once you see D2, you can say D2 series, they are all the contradictions elicited from the interrogation by another investigating officer. The CRPC or the evidence that is not, does not lay down this procedure. These are all practical procedures given to the judicial officers while recording a contradiction or omission. Now, then it is marked exhibit D1 or D1A subject to proof. Proof comes only when the investigating officer is finally examined. And he with reference to this D1 or D1A, he is asked a question. Did this particular with PW1 tell you when he was, when you questioned him, exhibit D1, then D1 is read out to him. Investigating officer said, yes, he mentions that statement to me. I recorded that. Then only the contradiction is proved. But there can be proof of contradiction even without the intervention of the investigating officer. Supposing the witness himself admits. Did you see the police seem to have recorded this statement of yours earlier? What have you got to say? Yes, I told the police officer. It becomes proof. Then further, he recorded the deposit of the investigating officer is not necessary for proving this particular contradiction. This is how a contradiction is marked and proved. Yes, the citations are one. Tarsil Dhar Singh's case pair, then few them. There's a beautiful judgment by Justice Banu Madhi. We came Isra versus state of Uttarakhand. Aya 2015 Supreme Court 3043, three judges. Other rulings are also there. But Kerala Ikot, there are so many rulings by Dushan Bench here. This is Kerala Ikot. But anyway, this is the procedure. Once this procedure is followed, there can be any dispute over that. There cannot be any dispute. In fact, the decision by Justice Bhatt and KG Balakrishan, UL Bhatt and Justice KG Balakrishan is 1990 criminal law journal 1477. It is Thangappan Mohanen versus state of Kerala, where his lordship said that overworked decision judges need not write the entire statement. It is a time consuming process. Only thing is they can put the first word and last word and put dotted lines in between. Only thing is they should ensure that the entire statement was read over to the witness. The judge should write statement read over to the witness. Yes. Question 15. Will not the case diary contradiction, if properly proved, constitute an item of evidence which can be relied on by the court as a piece of substantive evidence? Case diary contradiction, if proved through the investigating officer, it amount to proof of the contradiction only. It amount to proof of the contradiction, proof of the contradiction where contradiction is the police statement. It does not become substantive evidence. Substantive evidence is the statement of the witness in court while deposing upon oath during trial. This is substantive evidence. The earlier statement given to the police officer is not evidence at all. Therefore, when a contradiction is proved, the purpose of such proof is to do something which we will discuss in the next question. The citations are AR 1980, Supreme Court 873. It is not substantive evidence. Yes. Question 16. What is the use to which the previous contradictory statement of a witness can be put to? Yes. The only use to which the previous contradictory statement of the witness, given to the police officer, when duly proved through the investigating officer or through the witness himself, is only to discredit the witness. You can discredit the witness. Here is a witness who goes on changing, who goes on prevaricating, who gave a one particular statement before the police officer. Now in the court, he gives a totally different statement. When he is questioned regarding that, he gives a third view, third statement. He is not a person who can be believed. So the only purpose of this, of proving a contradiction or omission amounting to contradiction is to discredit the witness. That's all. This witness cannot be believed. That's all. It is not substantive evidence at all because it is a statement given to the police officer during investigations. It cannot be used for corroboration also because of the provision in the provisional to section 162, which says the only use is for eliciting a contradiction, not for corroboration. Tassildar Singh's case. Again, Shakila Kader versus Nausher Gama. AR 1975, Supreme Court, 1324. 1324. Again, 1976. Volume 2, SCC 836. That is Jit Singh. Jit Singh versus Dato Punjab. 1976. Volume 2, SCC 836. Again, Delhi administration. That is even for discrediting the witness. His previous statement to the police cannot be used unless that statement has been put to the witness before deposing in court. 1998, SCC 250. Yes, we pass on to question number 17. Is it not permissible to prove the case diary contradiction of a witness through the investigating officer who recorded the case diary statement without putting the contradiction to the witness concerned? See, contradiction is not in the statement of the investigating officer. Contradiction is in the statement of the witness. When the witness is in the witness box, his contradiction is to be elicited, is to be put to him. Without putting the contradiction to the witness concerned, you cannot prove a contradiction when the investigating officer for the first time mounts the witness box. You cannot say without putting the contradiction to the witness concerned. You cannot ask the investigating officer, Mr. Investigating Officer, Mr. Inspector. You question this particular witness, PW3. When you interrogated him, did he make such a statement? He may say, yes, he made such a statement. But that statement was not put to the witness. Without putting to the witness the contradiction, you cannot simply mark it through the investigating officer. It is only when the witness contradicts, you can mark it through the investigating officer. That is 1996, 8 ACC 250. 1996, volume 8 ACC 250. Yes, question 18. A prosecution eyewitness who was also the first informant supported the prosecution case in all its material particulars during the chief examination. But during his cross examination, he admitted that he could not identify the culprit due to the darkness. The trial court however completely believed the witness in view of his definite version and the first information statement. Subsequent statement to the police and his chief examination. Is there any fallacy in the approach of the trial court? See, he is a witness who set the criminal law in motion by giving the first information statement to the police. It was marked as exhibit because it is recorded under, it is a given information given under section 154 of the CRPC and no taken down by the station house officer and his signature is also obtained. Therefore, it is the earliest statement of the witness. Then during investigation also this witness gave statement to the 161 statement to the police officer conducting investigation. Then came his chief examination during trial. There also he fully supported the prosecution. In cross examination he however stated that I could not, of course, these offenses were committed, but I cannot recollect whether the persons standing in the dock, whether they are, they were the persons who committed the offense. Then the question is that the court however convicted the accused relying on the first information statement recorded under section 154, then the 161 statement recorded under section 161 CRPC during investigation and also during his chief examination which is substantive evidence. Chief examination is substantive evidence. Is there a fallacy? Is the question. Fallacy in the conviction. Can the conviction be sustained? Can the statement recorded by a police officer under section 161 CRPC be proved by a person other than such a person? No, no, I have not committed. I was only posing the question. See, the court went wrong in relying on 154 statement, first information statement as a substantive piece of evidence. It is not a substantive piece of evidence at all. You may refer to AR 1991 Supreme Court 3-1. It is not a substantive evidence at all, piece of evidence at all. Then the court relied on the 161 statement. We have already seen that it is not substantive evidence. Only uses to discredit the witness. It was court relied on the 161 statement given by the witness during investigation. Court could not have relied on that. Then the chief examination. Of course, chief examination is substantive evidence. But then the whole chief examination was completely wiped out through one statement in cross-examination. Of course, these offenses were committed against this person, this witness, this victim. But I cannot say whether these persons standing in the dock were the culprits. Entire chief examination is erased through this answer. So, the court cannot convict the accused in such a case. So, the conviction was illegal. Yes. That's a, there's a division including on the Kerala High Court. Yes. Okay. The case was one pertaining to a murder piece. That's a murder case pertaining to Karna Nisha as your friend. But I conducted that case for you. Yes. At that point of time, they just sued him over way. He was the session's judge at Trivandrum. So, the only eyewitness, he failed to identify him. Then the particular witness, he was asked to step out of the witness box because Trivandrum Court was, you know, it's a big court hall. You go to the accused, just have a look at him. The witness, he stepped out of the box, went to the accused. He had a nice look, came back and again said, I cannot identify. I was given lies. I appealed. And the division, even without according to a proper hearing, nearly said that this is a good enough, he's already involved in various cases. So, this cannot be considered. And I'm going to the application. My goodness. And there, it was also held that, a point of statement that can be, that's a substantive evidence. Now, sir, you would remember who the judge would be because there's a reported ruling also. I see. But if you subscribe to that. Never. Yes, how can it be substantive evidence? It is like a 164 statement only. 154 statements and 164 statements are almost alike in the eye of law. And it is never substantive evidence. And the statement of the witness in court is substantive evidence. And if the witness could not identify the accused, where is the question of completing the accused? Because, relevancy under section 9 of the evidence act. Yes. Question of identity is very, very crucial in such cases. Yes. We pass on to the next question. Question of identity. Can a statement recorded by a police officer under section 161 be proved by a person other than by such police officer? The person who recorded the first information statement, the officer, police officer who recorded the 164 statement is either dead or incapable of giving evidence or is not available without the expense, without unnecessary expense. His presence cannot be secured. He may be in Dubai or some other foreign country. In such a case, the question is whether somebody else can prove the 154 statement recorded by the police officer or 161 or even 161. That's the question. If the any person, how do you prove a document? How do you prove the signature of a document or the handwriting of a person? How do you prove if that person is not available by request to section 47? Did not. The person who is familiar, who is conversant with his handwriting or who is conversant with his signature, such a person can be summoned and he can say that this particular person, I know his signature, I know his handwriting, he recorded this 161 statement. This is a document as defined under section 3 of the Evidence Act. That was the decision of the Kerala Icon in Bialik Shrevelle versus the State of Kerala in 1995 to KLT 594 by Justice Dinkar of the Madras Icon. Justice Dinkar was then a judge of the Kerala Icon. Yes, question 20. Yes, sir. With a view to help the court to evaluate the medical evidence, the investigating officer deposes before the court that a particular charge witness when interrogated by him during the investigation and told him that the disease had taken a sumptuous breakfast two hours before his death. The defense objects to the above statement. Is the objection sustainable? The investigating officer says that when I interrogated a particular charge witness, he had told me that this deceased person had taken his sumptuous breakfast at 8am. Then I put it to the doctor and got his opinion regarding the actual approximate time of death. Now, is there any fallacy in the statement of the investigating officer? The charge witness whom he questioned has not been examined as a witness. By virtue of Section 60 of the Evidence Act, his evidence alone is admissible. He is very much available but was not examined. Instead, the investigating officer referring to his 161 statement says 161 statement recorded during investigation which is not admissible at all by virtue of the Interdict under Section 162-1. He says that when I questioned him, he gave me the time when the breakfast was taken. Then I put it to the doctor and elicited his opinion. It is totally hearsay evidence cannot be relied on at all. You may refer to AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4678. AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4678. Yes. Next question. Is it not permissible to mark the entire case diary statements of witnesses end block without incorporating the same in the depositions and without putting to the witness the relevant portion shot to be contradicted? Even reading Section 162 and read with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, it is clear that the contradictory part of the statement alone should be put to the witness. Not the entire statement recorded by a police officer from a witness may run into 2-3 pages or even 10 pages. But you are only eliciting a contradiction from his statement to the police running into several pages because he made a diametrically opposite statement in court. So you are only concentrating on the contradictory part of the statement. That statement alone can be put to the witness. But in one case Supreme Court said, the entire statement was put to the witness and it is shown that the defense did not suffer any prejudice. Nothing wrong in doing that. That is what Supreme Court said in one case. That is 1968, one Supreme Court weekly reports 730. In fact, in spite of the fact that this is the three-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court, it is not reported in criminal law journal, AIR, all these noted STC, etc. It is reported only in SCWR. 1968, one SCWR 730, three judges. They said that if the entire statement, end block has been put to the witness and the defense has not suffered any prejudice, just because the such a procedure was adopted, you cannot say that it is, that will not initiate the conviction or the trial. It is one decision. Then we pass on to omissions. Omissions amounting to contradiction. What is an omission and is it correct to say that all omissions do not amount to contradiction? Yes. An omission is always an improvement or an embellishment. What he stated before the court, he made a particular statement before the police officer and coming to the court, he improves upon that. He, improvement is of course supposing the substratum for the improvement is already there in the police statement. Nothing wrong. But he comes, the improvement is that he comes out with a diametrically opposite view. Then it becomes an improvement in court or an embellishment in court. It is an omission. That is also referred to in Para 23 of the Asindar Singh's case, beautifully explained with reference to an illustration. Yes. So the concluding question would be the continuation to give few instances of omission amounting to contradiction. Yes. I only wanted to give you a few citations so that depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, you can give the citations appropriately, practicing lawyers where the witness deposed before court that the deceased had made a dying declaration to him. But in his statement recorded under 161 CRPC, he did not state about the dying declaration. For the first time he said in the court that there was a dying declaration recorded from the deceased. He had no such case in the, in the, when questioned by the police to sell that a clear, it's a, no, no, no, no omission. An important, a significant omission. Ayer 2005 Supreme Court, 1277, 1277. Again, Ayer 2003 Supreme Court, 4670. In another case, witness stating in court that he had gone to the spot on hearing the sound of gun shot and tried to snatch away the gun from the accused. But in his police statement, he did not state anything regarding the snatching of the guns. In the, in the court he said that I tried to snatch the weapon from the hands of the accused. But he had no such case when questioned by the police. There is a significant omission, material omission in the police statement treated as a material omission. 2009 11 SCC, volume 11 SCC, 2009 volume 11 SCC, 106. Then in yet another case, the version of the prosecution witness also shown to be inimical to the accused. In court, the accused used, he said the accused used lapis. But such a statement was absent in the police statement. He had no such case when questioned by the police. Held to be a significant omission, state of UP versus V. Bannu, 2009 volume 4 SCC 271. Then father of deceased alleging in court for the first time about torture of his daughter by the accused, mother-in-law. There was no mention of such torture by the mother-in-law to the police when he was interrogated by the police officer. It was held to be a significant omission. Mira versus state of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 Supreme Court, 1879, 1879. Still another case, witnesses in their statements under section 161 CRPC given to the police, attributing a clear intention to the accused to commit murder of his wife. But stating before the session court that the accused was insane. In the police, clear intention motive was attributed. No case that the accused was insane. But during evidence said that the accused was insane, behaving like a madman. Omission amounting to contradiction. Held to be omission amounting to contradiction. AIR 1964 Supreme Court, 1563. Then yet another case. The omission on the part of PW3, 4 and 8, 3 witnesses stating before court that there had been exhortation on the part of the accused's presence as stated by them before the police would amount to contradiction. See, they said that there was exhortation by these 3 witnesses told the police that there was exhortation on the part of the accused. But they had no such case in the court. This is held to be an omission. With due respect, please note that this cannot be an omission. What is an omission? What is an omission? An omission is something which the witness omitted to mention before the police officer, when he was questioned by the police officer during investigation. Omission is something which can be occur only in the 161 statement, not in the statement before court. Supposing witness had some particular positive case before the police officer. He does not say so before the court. It is a contradiction which can be taken advantage of by the defense. Court, the defense cannot say he omitted to say this in the court. Treated as an omission. Omission is always in the 161 statement, not in the testimony before court. So this according to me is not an omission. Though Supreme Court took it as an omission. 2008-2004 Supreme Court, 4900. And omission in order to become an omission amounting to contradiction, it should be a material omission, not an insignificant omission or technical omission. It should be a material omission because even by the explanation which you read, the explanation section 162 which was incorporated after Thasildar Singh's case, where the Supreme Court said that omission also can, in a given case, amount to contradiction. After Thasildar Singh's case, the explanation was added. As per the explanation also, omission in the statement of the police officer should be on a material aspect. Then only it can become an omission, not an insignificant or inconsequential omission. We refer to 2004, volume 9 SCC 431, 2014, volume 12 SCC 473, again 2000, AR 2016, Supreme Court 4958. Yes. Yes, sir. Is it over? Yes. All questions are over. Sir, there are two options. One is that this brief you had prepared on that murder case, I can take that. Yes. Or I can take the questions which have been posted on the YouTube. We'll take murder case next week because next week we'll consider the impact of section 162 to various aspects of evidence. How does section 162 impact or influence other evidence, other items or pieces of evidence? Yes. Not the same subject, but a different subject, impact of 161. This is by Balvinder Sharma. If something is said by the witness in section 161 statement, but later it is omitted. While making a statement in the court intentionally, as it favored the accused, how does that omitted portion can be brought into court? Contradiction. See, he has stated before the police, but he omitted to state before the court. So with regard to the statement in the police, the defense lawyers should have elicited that contradiction. They did not tell the police officer such and such thing, but you have no such case here. What have you got to say? It is a contradiction. You can't treat it as an omission as was wrongly held in 2004 Supreme Court. Omission is in the statement of the police, not in the testimony before court. Please read the explanation to section 162. It makes matters very clear. An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in subsection 1, which is a statement referred to in subsection 1 statement given to a police officer conducting an investigation. Omission can only be in that statement, not in the testimony before court. Very often such confusions are there. In fact, my last citation was on this aspect only. Yes. What is the statement under section 161 is recorded by the police? Is it with the malefite or false from the IO side? From the investigating officer side. What is the statement under section 1? Some, there are police officers who do not even question the witness, but prepare 161 statement sitting below the staircase in the police station. Witness can very well say, I was never questioned by the police. This is a false statement prepared by the police. So in such a case, when the defense lawyer or when supposing the witness turns hostile or declared hostile by the prosecution and he tells the public prosecutor, he was declared hostile, then public prosecutor can ask only this. I tell you, the witness may say that I was never questioned by the police, which may be a fact also. He might not have been questioned by the police at all, but there is a 161 statement prepared by the police officer, who is not an honest police officer. Then if the witness is asked about that, he will say, I don't know. I was never questioned by the police. So in such a case, if the prosecutor wants to elicit some contradiction, he will have to preface this question by saying that I put it to you that you were questioned by the police officer. And during that questioning, you made such a statement. What have you got to say? That will be the style of cross-examination. What is the functional difference between interrogation and investigation? Interrogation is a part of investigation. Investigation is right after registering the FIR. If he commences investigation into section 157, by going to the place of occurrence, by apprehending the culprit if necessary, all those things are steps in investigation. The beautiful decision 55 Supreme Court may be able to give us the citation. 55 Supreme Court, what exactly is the investigation? What all steps are there in? H. N. Reshmud. Yes, H. N. Reshmud versus the state of UP also. Which are the steps of investigation? This is only one part of investigation. That is interrogating the witnesses who say that they saw the occurrence or they have some information regarding a part of this occurrence. That is part of the investigation. That is the difference. Investigation is the entire process. Interrogation is a part of the investigation. This is by Nitika. Can the testimony of the soul witness before police and session judge be relied upon? There being no other witness. Not before the police. Testimony of the witness before the police. If Ampli Corruption or rather the witness clearly says before court the occurrence and his statement is there is no material contradiction elicited from the witness so as to discredit his testimony. Solitary witness is sufficient because under section 134 I think. 134. The evidence needs to be weighed and not counted. Section 134 of the evidence act says evidence needs to be weighed and not counted. H. N. Because the quantity, not the quantity. H. N. Exactly. The quality and not the quantity. Therefore, if a solitary witness is sufficient, if his testimony is beyond reproach, is purely inspired by the confidence of the court, that is enough. One witness is enough. There is no point in having half a dozen witnesses and between them there might be a lot of contradictions also. The prosecution will be running the risk of being disbelieved by parading half a dozen witnesses. H. N. Can knowing that the person has contradicted in the cross-examination of his previous statement made in Chief Examination, can he be convicted for perjury? H. N. He can be. Nothing wrong. Only thing is his attention will have to be brought. Did you not say in Chief Examination that you make such a statement? Now you are making a diametrically opposite statement in cross-examination. What have you got to say? If he has no explanation to offer, he can be. H. N. This we have taken. Can a significant omission by the witness accused under Section 161 have an adverse effect on either the prosecution or the defense case? H. N. It depends. Supposing there is only one solitary witness and there is a material contradiction or omission in the 161 statement, very material, which may have an influence on the credibility of the witness. Court may not believe him. Court may say that I won't believe this such a witness. He has re-arricated on a very material aspect of the occurrence. I can't believe him. I will have to discredit him. Nothing. You can't generalize. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. H. N. During the next session, we will take up that problem. I have prepared a problem. Once you apply that problem, you will know the entire nitty-gritty of marking. What is a contradiction? What is a omission? How to mark it? That will be. Then there should be no more doubt on this aspect. Once you are able to answer that question, it's a problem, just a hypothetical problem. H. N. Because there is one interesting question. H. N. As you see that proposition. H. N. Yes. Yes, Mr. Rao. H. N. No, no. Because there is one interesting question in the chat box. Can we read that out? H. N. Who sure? H. N. Usually in trial court, so as to make him depose as per his previous statement. If that fact is admitted by the witness in his cross-examination, whether his evidence has any evidentiary value in light of Section 159 of the Evidence Act? H. N. See, if the witness admits that he made a contradictory statement. So, he is confronted with his case theory statement, 161 statement. And he says that, I did make such a statement. He has to give an explanation why he did make such a contradictory statement. Suppose he says, I gave that statement because I was afraid of the police. The police officer said, you will have to give me this answer. Otherwise, I will prosecute your wife also. Inducement threat or promise, 163 CRPC. Inducement threat or promise is a vitiating circumstance under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Because supposing the police officer said, unless you give this answer in such a fashion, I will prosecute not only you, not only you, your wife also. Then he says that he says in court, I gave that statement because I was scared of the police officer who threatened me, which may be a fact, may not be a fact. But then, if he is able to offer a satisfactory explanation, nothing turns on that contradiction. H. N. Thank you. So, the last question we take, different between a cross-examination and contradiction under Section 145. Kindly please explain. H. N. Cross-examination, contradiction can be elicited ordinarily in cross-examination unless it is the prosecution witness himself turning hostile. In a case where prosecution witness himself turning hostile, you do not call it cross-examination. You only say that the prosecutor is given, is permitted under Section 154 of the Evidence Act to put questions which might be put by the adverse party during cross-examination. What the adverse party can put during cross-examination, this same party, same council is allowed to put, you do not call it cross-examination, it will be part of the examination only. H. N. Yes, sir. We have taken the questions. I will ask Mr. Shyam to propose a formal vote of thanks. H. N. Thank you, Vitas, again taken by surprise. It is always a pressure and privilege, to propose a vote of thanks, especially when a giant in this field like Rampuma, sir addresses us and that too. H. N. I am only a small fry. H. N. The giant does not know the, I mean, it's what I call size. What I can say is that now regarding the practical applicability of contradictions and omissions amounting to contradictions and the nuances regarding that, I'm sure that none of us will be lingering any doubt because the clarity with which it was presented, the way in which the queries were answered, queries were answered. I'll say that evening well spent and because thank you for the wonderful work you're continuing and it's indeed a pleasure to associate with this platform. So, for and on behalf of everybody present and all those who have been benefited and is being benefited by the different classes of Justice V. Rampuma, sir, I would say a big thank you, sir, for sharing your thoughts and wisdom with us. And thank you all of you for being present in this evening on a very, very what you call important and often to a certain extent confusing aspect of criminal jurisprudence. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity as well. So, before we part as Mr. Shah has said and I'm seeing the way the expressions are pouring in, the way, sir, expresses it's actually for a young lawyer or a student of law, it improves his knowledge. And for a lawyer who's in the profession, his knowledge is also sharpened up. And that's why we always say, and you keep on finding that people keep on requesting us on the WhatsApp or otherwise, that kindly bring Justice V. Rampuma so that we can have our knowledge sharpened up. And it's always a pleasure connecting with Mr. Shah, Mr. Prem and Mr. Rao of late. And it's a pleasure that we work in the tandem. And all five can take things forward. And as they say, the captain of the captain of the ship is Justice Rampuma who takes things in the right stride. Thank you, sir, for sharing all your knowledge. And do we now have the next session on the Wednesday? People are asking. Whenever you are calling me for sessions, you are hampering my book writing. We will discuss it and we will share it on the WhatsApp. Thank you. I am very much encouraged in writing the book. Whenever you are calling me for webinars, you are hampering my book writing. Okay, we'll have next Wednesday. We have a legal encroachment, right? It falls on which date? Sir, it falls on the 7th. Okay, 7th. Same time. Thank you. Some newer aspects of 162. We'll discuss including that critical problem, that crucial problem. Once everyone assimilates that problem, 161 will be just child's play. Yes.