In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified that the testimony of investigating officers (IOs) regarding witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is inadmissible as evidence in court. The verdict came in the case "Renuka Prasad vs. The State" (2025 INSC 657), where the Court emphasized that while police officers may be credible witnesses for physical recoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, their testimony cannot be used to support statements recorded from witnesses under Section 161 CrPC.
Read Also:- Non-Public Servant Can Be Convicted For Abetting Offences Under Prevention Of Corruption Act
Background of the Case
The case revolved around the brutal murder of an individual in front of his son. Initially, the trial court acquitted the accused, noting that most of the prosecution witnesses, including the eyewitnesses, had turned hostile. However, the High Court reversed this decision, relying heavily on the investigating officer's testimony, which referenced the statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation under Section 161 CrPC.
A Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the High Court's decision, reinstating the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The Court made several crucial observations:
- Reliance on Section 161 Statements: The Court highlighted that statements made by witnesses to police officers during investigation (under Section 161 CrPC) have no evidentiary value in court unless the witnesses themselves confirm these statements during the trial.
- Hostile Witnesses: In this case, a significant number of witnesses, including the crucial eyewitnesses, turned hostile, denying their earlier statements. The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution’s attempt to rely on the investigating officer’s version of these statements was a clear violation of Section 162 CrPC.
Read Also:-Justice Bela Trivedi to Retire Early: Last Working Day in Supreme Court Set for May 16
- Investigating Officer’s Testimony: The Bench emphasized that the IO's testimony, which merely repeated the Section 161 statements of witnesses, could not be treated as credible evidence. The Court stated: "Merely because the IOs spoke of such statements having been made by the witnesses during investigation, does not give them any credibility, enabling acceptance, unless the witnesses themselves spoke of such motive or acts of commission or omission…"
Read Also:- Supreme Court Scraps 100-Point System for Senior Advocate Designation: Key Reasons Explained
The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle that statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC are only meant to assist in investigation and cannot be used as substantive evidence. Such statements may only be used to contradict a witness during trial, as per Section 162 CrPC.
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the accused, set aside their conviction, and restored their acquittal as ordered by the trial court.
- The Court underlined that in criminal law, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the accused, and in this case, the prosecution failed to present credible, legally admissible evidence.
Case Title: RENUKA PRASAD VERSUS THE STATE
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv. Mr. G.Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C.adhikesavan, Adv. Ms. Ratan Priya Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Harikrishnan P.v, Adv. Mr. C.kavin Ananth, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Adv. Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Sougat Pati, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Shrey Brahmbhatt, Adv.
