The Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that statements made by Investigating Officers (IOs) during trial, based solely on witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are inadmissible and hold no evidentiary value unless those witnesses themselves depose to such facts in court. The Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the conviction of six accused persons, restoring the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court.
Background
The case concerned the murder of an individual on April 28, 2011, allegedly committed by hired killers at the behest of A1, following a family dispute over educational institutions. The deceased was said to have sided with A1’s brother (PW4), prompting A1 to conspire with others to eliminate him. The murder was allegedly witnessed by the victim’s minor son (PW8), who lodged the First Information Statement.
The Trial Court had acquitted the accused, noting that 71 out of 87 witnesses, including all key eyewitnesses and panch witnesses, had turned hostile. The High Court, however, reversed the acquittal, relying heavily on the statements made by police officers about what the witnesses purportedly said under Section 161 CrPC.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The apex court held that the High Court committed a grave error in treating the Section 161 statements—recounted in court by IOs—as substantive evidence. It emphasized:
“The statements made by the IOs regarding the motive, conspiracy and preparation comes out as the prosecution story, as discernible from the Section 161 statements of various witnesses who were questioned by the police during investigation; which statements are wholly inadmissible under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.”
The Court reiterated that such statements can only be used for the limited purpose of contradiction, as prescribed under Section 162, and cannot be relied upon to convict unless the witnesses themselves confirm the facts during trial.
On Confessional Statements and Recoveries
The Supreme Court also noted that several recoveries—including cash, weapons, and clothing—were made based on the alleged confessions of the accused. However, most of these were inadmissible, as they either did not lead to discovery of any new facts or were made by an accused not directly linked to the murder.
The Court highlighted that mere recovery of articles with bloodstains matching the deceased’s blood group is insufficient without a direct evidentiary link between the items and the accused.
Conclusion and Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused through legal and admissible evidence. It held that:
“We are unable to find either the motive, the conspiracy or the preparation or even the crime itself to have been established in Court, at the trial through the witnesses examined before Court.”
Setting aside the High Court’s conviction, the Court allowed the appeals, acquitted the accused, and ordered their immediate release if not required in any other case.
Citation:
Renuka Prasad vs State, Criminal Appeal Nos. 3189–3190 of 2023, Supreme Court of India, decided on 9 May 2025.
