Section 162 of the Criminal Procedural Code prohibits statements made to police officers during an investigation from being signed or used as evidence, with some exceptions. Statements cannot be used at an inquiry or trial regarding the investigated offense, except to contradict a prosecution witness if duly proved. The section does not apply to dying declarations under Section 32(1) or discovery statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. A witness whose previous statement is used can be re-examined for explanation. The section is aimed at preventing coercion of statements but has some exceptions for contradicting witnesses and furthering justice.

1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL CODE, 1973
CHAPTER XII
SECTION 162: Statements to police not to be signed – Use of
statements in evidence
BY ARUNDHATI BANERJEE

2. BARE ACT LANGUAGE EXPLAINED
(1) 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 statements
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 as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence
under investigation at the time when such statement was made:
FLOW CHART FOR EASY EXPLANATION
INVESTIGATION POLICE
OFFICER
STATEMENT
TRIAL
INQUIRY
NOT USED

3. SECTION 162 CONTINUED…
Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement
has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, 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 such statement
is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose
only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.
FLOW CHART FOR EASY EXPLANATION
ANY
STATEMENT
POLICE
OFFICER
CANNOT BE USED FOR
ANY PURPOSE
EXCEPT FOR
PROSECUTION
WITH THE
PERMISSION OF
THE COURT

4. SECTION 162 CONTINUED…
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1)
of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.
Explanation – An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may
amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the
context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular
context shall be a question of fact.
FLOW CHART FOR EASY EXPLANATION
WHETHER
OMISSION
CONTRADICTION
QUESTION OF
FACT
IF YES
SIGNIFICANT
RELEVANT

5. EXCEPTIONS
Section 162 can be used for a five fold purposes, namely:-
1. It may be used by the defense for contradicting the prosecution witness.
2. It may be used by the prosecution for contradicting the prosecution witness with the permission of the
court. This might be desirable a prosecution witness is won over by the other side. [Section 145]
3. The witness whose pervious statement is so used may be re-examined by way of an explanation, if necessary
4. Section 32(1) – dying declaration
5. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – discovery statements
EXCEPTIONS
STATEMENT IS DULY
PROVED BY THE
PROSECUTION – Section
161 can be used by
defense to contradict
PROSECUTION WITH THE
PERMISSION OF THE
COURT – Prosecution can
also contradict, but they
have limited usage
CONTRADICTION
UNDER SECTION 145
IEA CAN BE DONE
RE-EXAMINATION
STATEMENT CAN BE USED
UNDER SECTION 32(1)
SECTION
27 IEA

6. POINTS TO REMEMBER
• If the statement is not given to the Police officer then that statement is outside the purview of Section 162.
Even if the investigation is prior or after then also it will not be under this section.
• This section does not apply in maintenance of wife and children under Section 125. It is of quasi civil nature.
• This Section does not bar a Judge to use the statement when they are questioned under Section 165 of
Indian Evidence Act.
• Tape recorded statement is admissible as it is an electronic statement as well.
• If the signatures are done the security will increase on the part of the judiciary and will not effect the
prosecution.
• Any statement recorded by police officer under Section 174 during enquiry Section 162 will not apply.
• This Section does not come into play if the cognizance has been taken under Section 190(1) (a).
• This Section applies on both cognizable and non cognizable offence as both comes under Chapter XII.

7. POINTS TO REMEMBER CONTINUED…
If a person is called as a Court witness under Section 311 of the Code, he is neither a prosecution
witness nor a defense witness. Can his former statement before the police be used by the Councillor
for the purpose of contradicting him?
Apparently, Section 162 does prohibit the use of such statement even by the court. However,
Section 162 is not explicit enough to control Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act which confers wide
powers on the Court to question a witness in order to secure the ends of justice. Considering the
purpose of Section 162 and the mischief it was designed to prevent as well as it context, it has been
held that the Section must be confined in its scope to the use by parties only of statement
mentioned therein.

8. CASES RELATED TO THIS SECTION
TEHSILDAR SINGH vs. STATE OF U.P. AIR 1959
A statement not only includes what is expressly stated therein but also what is necessarily implied therein. It
applies on statement as well as on implication.
R.M. MALKHANI vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AIR 1973
A tape-recorded statement has been held to be outside the purview of Section 162. Where a person talking on
the telephone allows a police officer to record it on tape or to hear it and the court permits the tape recording
to be played over, it was held that such conservation was not within the vice of Section 162.
YUSUFALLI vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AIR 1968
When the police set the stage for the drama and hid themselves and took no part in it, neither the
complainant nor the accused could be regarded as having made a statement to a police officer.
SAT KUMAR vs. STATE OF HARYANA AIR 1974
Where the police officer, after registering a case obtaining the FIR, proceeded to the spot in the course of
investigation, any statement recorded by him there will be hit by this Section.

9. SATYA NARAYAN vs. EMPEROR AIR 1944
A statement made to a third person in the presence of a police officer is not within this Section.
SANTA SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1956
Every statement made to a person assisting the police during the course of investigation cannot be treated as a
statement to the police. Thus if after arranging the identification parade the police leave the field and allow the
identification to be made under the sole direction of the pancha witnesses, the statements of the identifying
witnesses made to the pancha witnesses would be outside the purview of Section 162.
RAZIK RAM vs. J.S. CHAUHAN AIR
The prohibition contained in this Section relates to all statements made during the course of an investigation. A
statement of a witness recorded by the police during inquest under Section 174 of the Code will be within the
inhibition of this Section.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. TEJA RAM AIR 1999
If an investigating officer has by mistake obtained the signature of the accused on the seizure memo in violation
of Section 162(1), it shall not violate the whole proceedings.
CASES CONTINUED…

10. CASES CONTINUED…
B.SUBBA RAO vs. HC OF AP AIR 1997
Where the report sent by an eye witness reached the police station only after the investigation had
already begun, the Supreme Court said that it could not be regarded as the statement recorded under
Section 162 and as such inadmissible in evidence.
RAGHUNANDAN vs. STATE OF U.P. AIR 1974
The ban imposed by Section 162 appears sweeping and wide but its language is not explicit or specific
enough to extend the prohibition to the prohibition to the use of wide and special powers of the court to
question a witness expressly and explicitly given by Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act in order to ensure
the ends of justice.
LAXMAN KALU vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AIR 1968
When a person whose statement has been recorded under Section 161, is not examined as a prosecution
witness, but a witness in defense the proviso to Section 162(1) does not come into play at all, and the
prosecution cannot be allowed to confront such a defense witness with his previous statement recorded
during investigation under Section 161.

11. CASES CONTINUED…
KHATRI (4) vs. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 1981
The bar created by Section 162, has no application for example in a civil proceeding or in a
proceeding under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, a proceeding under Section 452 of the Code
for disposal of the property, and a statement made before a police officer in the course of
investigation can be used as evidence in such a proceeding, provided it is otherwise relevant under
the Evidence Act.

12. THANK YOU
PLEASE LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE