Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence. 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 ; 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 Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried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) 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 statement 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:
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 (1 of 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.
(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 (1 of 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.
Section 162, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 181 Statements to police and use thereof Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
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.
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.
-
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-13.pdf 2019-04-24 (not same-date ROP order-14). Crl A 714/2019. DATE-CHECK flagged 1996-04-10 because the FIR is quoted in the facts; the document is the K.M. Joseph J. reportable judgment. A s.161 statement, even if it contains an admission, is barred by CrPC 162 at the charge-framing stage. A confession to police is also barred by IEA 25. Charge cannot rest on co-accused police statements alone. Map crpc 162 and iea 25.
On this section: s.162 bars using a statement to police during investigation, even if it contains an admission, at any inquiry or trial except to contradict a prosecution witness. It cannot found a charge (Dipakbhai).
-
State of A. P vs V. V. Panduranga Rao
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A cryptic telephonic message received by police about a cognizable offence cannot be treated as a valid First Information Report. The object of a telephonic message is merely to request the police to proceed to the place of occurrence and not to lodge a formal FIR. Only where detailed information is provided on telephone and the officer in charge is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and proceeds from the police station after recording such information, does any subsequent statement amount to a Section 162 statement of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not an FIR. In evaluating evidence, courts must consider discrepancies between investigation statements and court testimony, and the absence of corroborative investigative measures.
On this section: Recording of statements made to police during investigation and their status as non-admissible evidence in court
-
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: Statements to police not to be signed and not to be used except for contradiction
-
Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once conscious possession of narcotic substances is established through circumstantial evidence (presence in vehicle, failure to establish alternative explanation, running away, abscondance), the accused is presumed to be in conscious possession. The absence of a test identification parade does not vitiate conviction where eyewitnesses with adequate opportunity have identified the accused in court. Section 50 of NDPS Act applies only to personal body searches and not to searches of vehicles or containers. The conviction of narcotics offences can rest upon trustworthy evidence of official witnesses even without independent witness corroboration, provided the quality of evidence is unimpeachable.
On this section: Governs the conduct and documentation of test identification parades. The court noted that test identification parades are investigative tools governed by this section and do not constitute substantive evidence.
-
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.
On this section: Inadmissibility of statements made to police officer during investigation
-
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: Limited use of Section 161 statements; cannot be used as substantive evidence in substantive proceedings
-
Ladi vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused has an indefeasible right to fair trial and equal opportunity to prove his innocence. Electronically recorded conversations are admissible as documentary evidence under the amended Indian Evidence Act and Information Technology Act 2000 when: (1) the conversation is relevant to matters in issue; (2) the voice is properly identified; and (3) the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of tampering, erasure, addition or manipulation. Courts must exercise their powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 Evidence Act to examine witnesses and elicit evidence essential to just decision, taking a participatory role in trials to arrive at truth. When a witness has not been cross-examined on material evidence that subsequently emerges, courts should grant opportunity for re-examination to ensure fair trial.
On this section: Discussed in context of whether tape-recorded conversation is inadmissible as statement made to police during investigation. Court held contemporaneous tape recording is not statement made to police.
-
Laldeo Bhuian vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a murder case based on direct eyewitness testimony, when multiple credible eyewitnesses consistently testify to witnessing the commission of the offense, the absence of corroborating physical evidence (such as chemical analysis of seized articles) or procedural defects in investigation do not vitiate the conviction if the eyewitnesses are found to be reliable and their presence at the scene is reasonably explained. The court must focus on the quality and consistency of eyewitness testimony rather than technical investigative procedures when direct evidence of guilt is established.
On this section: Provision regarding inadmissibility of statements recorded during investigation; court distinguished between prior rumor and formal FIR to hold FIR admissible
-
Mahendra Rajendra Thakur vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
All three ingredients of Section 489(C) IPC - possession of counterfeit notes, knowledge that they are counterfeit, and intention to use them as genuine - were proved against the appellants through: (1) direct evidence of recovery of 48 counterfeit notes from their possession; (2) expert report from India Security Press confirming all notes were counterfeit; (3) circumstantial evidence and testimony of accomplice witnesses establishing knowledge and intention; (4) the appellants' failure to offer any explanation for their possession. Therefore, the conviction under Section 489(C) r/w 34 IPC is justified. However, considering the small quantity of notes and the substantial pre-trial custody already undergone (ranging from 19 months 11 days to 21 months 10 days), the sentence should be reduced to time already served rather than the three years imposed by the trial court.
On this section: Cited regarding statements recorded during investigation; court distinguished between FIR and statements under Section 162
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.
-
… 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 is concerned, his version in the examination-in-chief is same as what is stated by PW-1. He claimed that he stated before the police that the accused were assaulting the deceased by sword. However, the statement regarding the use of the sword is an omission. The statement that he saw …
-
… 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 is concerned, his version in the examination-in-chief is same as what is stated by PW-1. He claimed that he stated before the police that the accused were assaulting the deceased by sword. However, the statement regarding the use of the sword is an omission. The statement that he saw …
Questions about Section 162
What have the courts held on Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (24 Apr 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.162 bars using a statement to police during investigation, even if it contains an admission, at any inquiry or trial except to contradict a prosecution witness. It cannot found a charge (Dipakbhai). Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 162 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 162, section 162 CRPC, section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (24 Apr 2019).
What should I read with Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Indian Evidence Act 32 (Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant), Indian Evidence Act 145 (Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing), so none of them can safely be read on its own. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 181 (Statements to police and use thereof), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 162, 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.