Section 162 CrPC and Section 181 BNSS: Police Statements and Their Use in Evidence
A statement made to a police officer during a criminal investigation is generally not to be signed by the person making it. Its use at an inquiry or trial is restricted. The earlier rule under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is substantially continued by Section 181 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), effective from 1 July 2024.
Meaning and purpose of the rule
The provision protects the integrity of witness testimony by limiting the evidentiary use of statements collected during police investigation. An investigative statement is not ordinarily substantive evidence proving the truth of its contents. A witness's testimony before the court is tested through examination and cross-examination.
Section 181 BNSS: Statements to police and use thereof
Sub-section (1): No signature and restricted use
A statement made to a police officer during an investigation under the relevant chapter must not be signed by its maker if reduced to writing. Neither the statement nor a record of it, including an entry in the police diary, may be used at an inquiry or trial concerning the offence under investigation except as expressly permitted by the section.
Proviso: Where a prosecution witness's statement was recorded in writing, the accused may use a duly proved portion to contradict that witness. The prosecution may do so only with the court's permission. The method of contradiction is governed by Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). A portion used in contradiction may be explained in re-examination, but only in relation to matters raised in cross-examination.
Sub-section (2): Statutory exceptions
The restriction does not apply to a statement falling within Section 26(a) BSA, concerning relevant statements about the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death. It also does not affect the proviso to Section 23(2) BSA, which permits proof of the portion of information from a person in police custody that distinctly relates to a fact discovered, subject to the statutory requirements.
Explanation: Significant omissions may be contradictions
An omission in a prior police statement can amount to a contradiction if it is significant and relevant in its context. Whether a particular omission qualifies is a question of fact; not every omission is automatically a contradiction.
Section 162 CrPC: Earlier provision
Section 162(1) CrPC prohibited signatures on written statements made to police in the course of investigation and restricted their use in criminal proceedings. It permitted duly proved portions to contradict prosecution witnesses, using Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; the prosecution needed court permission. Re-examination could explain matters raised in cross-examination.
Under Section 162(2) CrPC, the restriction did not apply to statements covered by Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act and did not affect Section 27 of that Act. Its explanation likewise recognized that a significant and relevant omission could amount to a contradiction.
Corresponding provisions under the new laws
| Earlier law | Current corresponding law | Subject |
|---|---|---|
| Section 162 CrPC | Section 181 BNSS | Unsigned police statements and restricted use |
| Section 145, Evidence Act | Section 148 BSA | Contradiction by previous written statements |
| Section 32(1), Evidence Act | Section 26(a) BSA | Statements relating to cause of death |
| Section 27, Evidence Act | Proviso to Section 23(2) BSA | Information leading to discovery |
How a previous police statement is used to contradict a witness
- Identify the specific portion of the earlier written statement that differs materially from the witness's court testimony.
- Draw the witness's attention to that particular portion in cross-examination as required by Section 148 BSA.
- Prove the relevant contradiction through the legally appropriate evidence, including the investigating officer where necessary.
- Distinguish a material inconsistency from a minor omission; the court determines its significance.
Example: If a witness testifies in court that they clearly saw the accused holding a weapon but the recorded police statement contains no such assertion, the omission may be relevant. Whether it constitutes a contradiction depends on its importance and the circumstances of recording.
Frequently asked questions
Should a witness sign a statement recorded by police under Section 181 BNSS?
No. A written statement made to police during an investigation under this provision is not to be signed by its maker. Different rules may apply to other types of documents or statements recorded under distinct statutory provisions.
Is a police statement substantive evidence?
Ordinarily, no. Its use is restricted, particularly for contradicting a prosecution witness in the manner authorized by law, subject to express exceptions.
Can the prosecution use a previous police statement to contradict its witness?
Yes, but only with the permission of the court and subject to the statutory method of proof.
Does Section 162 CrPC still matter after 1 July 2024?
Yes. It remains relevant to saved investigations and proceedings under the transition provisions, as well as to interpreting earlier case law. The applicable statute should be determined from the procedural history of the case.
Official legislation and further reading
Consult the authoritative enacted texts and subsequent amendments before relying on a provision in litigation:
- India Code - official central legislation database (search for the BNSS, 2023 and Section 181).
- Ministry of Home Affairs - New Criminal Laws.
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - official text (PDF).
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - section index.
- Section 161 CrPC - examination of witnesses by police.
- Section 163 CrPC - no inducement to be offered.
- Section 164 CrPC - recording of confessions and statements.
This article is general legal information. The governing statute and admissibility of a particular statement depend on the case facts, applicable savings provisions, and judicial rulings.