Examination of witnesses by police
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with examination of witnesses by police. Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the fac The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.
Section 161, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 180 Examination of witnesses by police Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 5
- s. 39 Public to give information of certain offences
- s. 172 Diary of proceedings in investigation
- s. 173 Report of police officer on completion of investigation
- s. 207 Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents
- s. 208 Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other casestriable by Court of Session
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
R. Shaji v. State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-13.pdf 2013-02-04 (not same-date order-14 ROP). Chauhan/Gowda, Crl A 1774/2010. A CrPC 164 magistrate statement is not substantive evidence but can be used to corroborate or contradict; a 161 police statement is still weaker and cannot be treated as substantive. Delay or procedural wrinkles in recording 164 go to weight, not automatic exclusion. Map CrPC 161 and 164 plus BNSS 180/183.
On this section: A s.161 police statement is not substantive evidence and cannot convict on its own; it is weaker than a 164 statement.
-
Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi vs State of Manipur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on pertinent and relevant material capable of objective scrutiny. Statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, standing alone and without corroborating material, are insufficient to form the basis for a detention order as they are not substantive evidence but can only be used to contradict the maker at trial. When grounds of detention are vague, irrelevant, or not supported by material evidence, or when there is unexplained delay in forwarding representation to the Central Government, the detention order becomes vulnerable to being quashed on judicial review. The difficulty of the prosecution in securing evidence for conviction through normal trial cannot justify resorting to preventive detention.
On this section: Statement recorded by police officer; not substantive evidence, only used to contradict maker at trial
-
Banarsi Dass vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecution under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, mere recovery of tainted money from the accused, even if properly conducted and documented through recovery memo with attesting witnesses, cannot sustain conviction without substantive evidence proving the essential ingredients of 'demand' by the public servant and 'voluntary acceptance' by him of such gratification as motive or reward for doing an official act. When the eyewitnesses to the demand and acceptance (shadow witnesses) turn hostile and deny or substantially recant their police statements despite confrontation, and no corroborating evidence from independent witnesses to the actual transaction exists, the prosecution fails to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal on the technical ground of hostile witnesses, even if the recovery itself is valid and unimpeached.
On this section: Provides for recording of police statements during investigation. The Court examined how hostile witnesses recanted their Section 161 statements and held that when contradictions emerge, the burden on prosecution increases substantially to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Md. Ankoos vs Pub. Pros. High Court of A. P. Hyderabad
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When appellants have been expressly charged under Section 148 IPC for rioting with deadly weapons and acquitted thereof by both the trial court and the appellate court, they cannot be legally convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC which creates constructive liability based on membership of unlawful assembly with common object. The common substratum necessary for both Sections 148 and 149 (i.e., the unlawful assembly with common object) must exist for Section 149 constructive liability to apply. Further, a High Court cannot reverse a trial court's judgment of acquittal by using case diary statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to verify witness credibility or overcome contradictions without following the mandatory procedure under Section 172 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 Indian Evidence Act.
On this section: Recording of statements by police - statements under this section not to be used to contradict witnesses without proper opportunity to explain
-
Guria, Swayam Sevi Sansthan vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In bail applications under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, and related human trafficking offences, courts must carefully consider the gravity of the charged offences and must not grant bail in a cursory manner. The absence of specific identification or detailed description of an accused person's role in witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC is not sufficient ground to grant bail when the accused is charged with serious trafficking-related offences. Courts must distinguish between rescued victims and those accused of perpetrating the trafficking and must not ignore material evidence regarding the systematic nature of the trafficking operation. The severity of punishment provided under the Act (ranging from 3 years to life imprisonment) demands cautious and deliberate consideration of bail applications by higher courts.
On this section: Recording of witness statements during investigation. Court held that statements recorded under this section are sufficient for bail proceedings and Section 164 recording is not mandatory in trafficking cases.
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Examination of witnesses by police during investigation
-
Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC are: (1) the existence of a live link or nexus between the abetment and the suicide; (2) the active role of instigation or aiding on the part of the accused; (3) the intention to aid or instigate the commission of suicide; (4) the absence of any severing of these constituents. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide falls short of the offense of abetment. Contiguity, continuity, culpability, and complicity of indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Mere domestic discord, absence of support, or property disputes, without active sustained incitement with direct causative content, cannot sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused's conduct was the direct, proximate, and compelling cause for the victim's suicide, and if the victim appears hypersensitive to ordinary domestic discord not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the accused cannot be held guilty. The court must be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances to determine whether cruelty meted out to the victim in fact induced the suicide, and the absence of complaints to police, civil suits, or evidence of specific threats substantially weakens the prosecution's case.
On this section: Referenced regarding statements recorded during police investigation. The court noted that witnesses (PW5 and PW6, brothers of Surjit) admitted that they had not disclosed certain facts to the Investigating Officer during their Section 161 statements, which affected the reliability and completeness of the investigation.
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Recording of statements by police during investigation; statements recorded under this section are part of prosecution materials to be considered at discharge stage
-
Honnaiah T. H vs The State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An informant/injured victim has the legal standing to file a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed during trial, provided the order is not merely interlocutory but substantially affects the rights of the parties or could result in gross miscarriage of justice. The test for determining whether an order is interlocutory is whether it is of a purely interim or temporary nature that does not decide or touch upon important rights or liabilities of parties. Any order that substantially affects the rights of parties, such as an order refusing to mark crucial evidence as an exhibit, is not interlocutory and is therefore subject to revision. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC can be exercised at the instance of a private complainant or informant where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence or committed a manifest illegality that could result in gross miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Governs statements recorded by police during investigation. The Court clarified that the informant's statement at the hospital was not a Section 161 statement but the basis of the FIR.
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial court must apply its judicial mind and sift the evidence placed before it by the prosecution for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case has been made out. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or rely solely on post-mortem reports to determine the nexus between alleged assault and death. The post-mortem report is not substantive evidence but merely a previous statement of the doctor; only the doctor's oral testimony in court constitutes substantive evidence. Whether the cause of death has any nexus with the alleged assault can only be determined after recording oral evidence of eye witnesses and the medical officer as an expert witness. The determination of whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) must be made only after evaluation of the entire oral evidence led by both prosecution and defence at the end of the trial, not at the charge-framing stage. If a prima facie case is made out based on the materials placed by the prosecution, even if those materials give rise to strong suspicion, the charge should be framed in accordance with the case put up by the prosecution, and the accused should be given the opportunity to defend against the higher charge at trial.
On this section: Recording of statements - statements of eye witnesses recorded under this section were considered as part of prosecution material
-
N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for conclusive proof in criminal convictions. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing best evidence. The non-examination of a key witness who is the best person to clarify disputed facts is fatal to the prosecution case. Mere departmental misconduct, even if gross, does not constitute criminal breach of trust, cheating, or falsification of accounts unless the essential ingredients of these offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of financial loss to the bank and the absence of any complaint from the affected party are material factors in determining criminal liability. Once entrustment of property is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the property was dealt with in a legally and contractually acceptable manner, but this burden must be discharged in the context of the prosecution's failure to produce best evidence.
On this section: Provides for recording statements during investigation; Court noted that CBI failed to record statement of B. Satyajit Reddy under this section
-
Mohd Juned Shaikh vs The State of Gujarat State of Gujarat Secreatary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal conspiracy cases involving terrorism under POTA, where the prosecution proves through confessional statements (recorded with all statutory safeguards), eyewitness testimony (corroborated by medical and forensic evidence), circumstantial evidence (including mobile phone records, recovery of weapons, and other incriminating items), and expert opinions (ballistic and forensic), the accused can be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court's acquittal based on a hypertechnical approach and perverse appreciation of evidence can be reversed by the Supreme Court. Ocular evidence is to be preferred over medical evidence unless the medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of the ocular evidence being true. Confessional statements recorded under Section 32 POTA with all safeguards are admissible and can be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence. A PIL filed with oblique motives and in conjunction with accused persons is misconceived and should be dismissed.
On this section: Section 161 deals with recording statements during investigation. Section 164 deals with recording confessions before magistrate. Section 313 deals with recording statements of accused. Section 482 deals with inherent powers of courts.
-
Girish Sharma vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While a prosecutor enjoys discretion in deciding whether to charge a person as an accused or cite them as a witness in a chargesheet, the court retains ultimate and final authority to take cognizance based on a balanced assessment of the interests of justice. In exercising this authority, the court must weigh: (a) the utility of the person as a witness in strengthening the prosecution case against more serious accused; (b) the interests of justice in summoning such person as an accused; and (c) whether summoning them as accused would jeopardize the prosecution case against the main accused. The prosecutor's decision to cite a person as witness is not binding on the court and can be interfered with when interests of justice so require. However, such interference must be based on a holistic consideration of all relevant factors, not merely on the existence of incriminating material. Additionally, the procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C. (seeking pardon for accomplices) is not the only available procedure for citing an accomplice as a witness, and accomplices can be used as witnesses in appropriate circumstances without formal pardon proceedings.
On this section: Recording of statements during investigation; court held these statements should not be sole basis for summoning as accused after rejected as witnesses
-
State of Assam vs Faruk Ahmed
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions for child marriage and sexual assault of minors under the POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the victim's age at the time of marriage through reliable documentary evidence such as birth certificates and marriage documents. Oral evidence alone, without corroborating documentary proof, is insufficient to establish that a marriage was a child marriage or that sexual assault occurred on a minor. The absence of such documentary evidence, despite the prosecution's duty to produce it, results in acquittal as the charges cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Statement of Witness - Referenced in the context of the informant's statement, which the court found lacked authenticity and basis.
-
State Inspector of Police, Repalle Ps vs Pallapati Nissi Kumar Alias Boyaz
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases relating to rape, the victim's evidence is crucial and significant. In the absence of credible testimony from the victim corroborating the allegations of sexual assault, the prosecution cannot prove the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt, even if other circumstantial or medical evidence is available. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and when the victim turns hostile and denies the allegations, the prosecution's case fails for lack of essential evidence.
On this section: Recording of statements by police during investigation; statements can be used to contradict witness if witness turns hostile
-
Neetu Dixit @ Nisha vs State Of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under criminal procedure, the court is required only to evaluate whether there exists a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed based on the material on record, accepting the prosecution's materials as true at that stage. Material discrepancies in evidence, allegations of planted evidence, and procedural irregularities are matters exclusively within the domain of trial and cannot be adjudicated at the charge-framing stage by way of criminal revision. The distinction between prima facie case (sufficient for charge-framing) and proof beyond reasonable doubt (required for conviction) is fundamental to criminal procedure, and the High Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the trial court on evidentiary matters without trial.
On this section: Recording of witness statements during investigation; petitioner highlighted discrepancies in timing of witness statements
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… A5 was acquitted and A6, whose role was identical to A5, was convicted, erroneously. It is argued that PWs 1 to 3, the daughter-in-law, son and wife of the deceased did not name A6 in the initial statement given under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[2]( page-2-0) and was included only later in the statements given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The reliance placed on PW7 is untenable since he belongs to a rival political party and there were cases pending between him and A6, clearly indicating an intention to somehow inculpate …
-
… After carefully perusing the cross-examination, we find no material omissions or contradictions have been brought on record regarding the role ascribed to the appellants. The only omission brought on record is that the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC') does not mention that after attending one class, he came to the house on the date of the incident. We do not think that this omission is so relevant as to amount to contradiction as provided in the explanation to Section 162 of CrPC. 10. As far as PW-2 …
-
… After carefully perusing the cross-examination, we find no material omissions or contradictions have been brought on record regarding the role ascribed to the appellants. The only omission brought on record is that the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC') does not mention that after attending one class, he came to the house on the date of the incident. We do not think that this omission is so relevant as to amount to contradiction as provided in the explanation to Section 162 of CrPC. 10. As far as PW-2 …
Questions about Section 161
What have the courts held on Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
R. Shaji v. State of Kerala (04 Feb 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: A s.161 police statement is not substantive evidence and cannot convict on its own; it is weaker than a 164 statement. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 161, section 161 CRPC, section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. People searching for it also type crpc 161 in bnss and crpc 161 statement. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with R. Shaji v. State of Kerala (04 Feb 2013).
What should I read with Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 180 (Examination of witnesses by police), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly called statement to police, and cited as CRPC 161, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.