Latest JudgementIndian Evidence Act, 1872

RENUKA PRASAD VERSUS THE STATE, 2025

The Supreme Court ruling on the inadmissibility of police testimonies regarding witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Supreme Court of India·14 May 2025

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

14 May 2025

Judges

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia ⦁ Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The accused were involved in a case where the investigating officer (IO) relied on witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to establish the motive, conspiracy, and preparation for the crime.
The trial court rejected these statements on the ground that they were inadmissible under Section 162 Cr.P.C., but the High Court reversed this decision, accepting the police officer's testimony and convicting the accused.
The appeal was made to the Supreme Court by the appellant, Renuka Prasad, challenging the reliance placed by the High Court on these Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

Whether police testimonies regarding statements made by witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. could be used as evidence to establish the motive, conspiracy, or preparation for the crime?
Whether such statements, which are inadmissible under Section 162 Cr.P.C., can be treated as evidence by the courts, especially when they are recounted by investigating officers during trial?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the accused, which was based on the witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C..
The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused based on legally admissible evidence, particularly because the witnesses had turned hostile, and the police officer’s testimony could not replace their direct testimony in court.

The Supreme Court's reasoning underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules about the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases.
By distinguishing between the use of police testimony for physical recoveries (which can be reliable) and testimony regarding witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (which cannot be used substantively), the Court protected the integrity of the criminal justice system.
The decision reinforces that hostile witnesses who do not stand by their earlier statements recorded by the police cannot be substituted by the investigating officer’s narration of those statements. This judgment safeguards the rights of the accused and ensures that convictions are only based on lawful, substantive evidence.
The Court's analysis calls attention to the abuse that could occur if statements made to the police, especially when they are not recorded in the presence of a magistrate, are relied upon as credible evidence in a trial.
It also highlights the limits of police authority in using witness statements, ensuring that Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements cannot be given legal weight unless independently verified during the trial.