In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court of India clarified that Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not hinder a trial court's ability to scrutinize documents or interrogate witnesses voluntarily to uncover contradictions in their statements.

The bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered this significant ruling while considering an appeal from a convicted individual, facing the death penalty for the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl. The case revolved around contradictory statements provided by witnesses during police interviews and their subsequent testimony in court.

Section 162 of the CrPC stipulates that statements made to the police during an investigation cannot be employed for any purpose except as outlined in the first proviso of the section. This proviso permits the accused, with court approval, to challenge the witness's statement as per Section 145 of the Evidence Act when the witness testifies for the prosecution.

The central issue before the court was whether, considering the limitations imposed by the proviso, the court could act suo motu (on its own motion) in this regard. The bench emphasized that the proviso's "purpose" pertained exclusively to discrediting prosecution witness testimony using their earlier statements to the police.

Crucially, the court underscored that the proviso did not deprive the court of the authority to review pertinent documents or pose questions to witnesses autonomously in the pursuit of justice. They pointed out that Section 165 of the Evidence Act explicitly grants judges extensive powers to query witnesses and examine documents.

The verdict also highlighted the responsibility of trial judges to inform inexperienced defense attorneys of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, particularly when appointed by the court in complex cases.

In this particular case, the court identified substantial shortcomings in the defense's failure to establish significant contradictions emerging from the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and referred the case back to the High Court for a fresh determination on the death penalty issue.

This landmark judgment reaffirms a trial court's discretionary power to seek the truth through the examination of documents and witnesses, independent of a party's request. It underscores the judiciary's unwavering commitment to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in criminal proceedings.

Case Title: Munna Pandey (Appellant) v. State of Bihar (Respondent)

Click here to read/download judgment