9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Admissibility of Panchnama in evidence under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The judgment addressed the issue of the admissibility of a Panchnama in evidence under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant contended that the Panchnama was inadmissible and violated the provisions of Section 162. The appellant relied on a previous court decision where it was stated that a Panchnama made by the police could be considered a statement made to a police officer and thus hit by Section 162. However, the court clarified that a Panchnama is a document recording events witnessed by Panchas, not necessarily a statement communicated to a police officer. The court emphasized that a Panchnama is relied upon to support the testimony of Panchas and is considered a statement made by them under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. The court also referred to a previous judgment stating that a Panchnama is a record of what a Panch witnesses and can be used to refresh their memory when testifying. The court highlighted that for a statement to fall under Section 162, it must be made to a police officer during the investigation of a cognizable offense. The court concluded that unless a Panchnama contains a statement communicated to a police officer, it is admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act and does not violate Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment further discussed the distinction between a Panchnama being a record of events witnessed by Panchas and a statement communicated to a police officer. The court emphasized that the mere presence of a police officer when a statement is made does not render it inadmissible. The court reiterated that a Panchnama should be scrutinized to determine if any part of it falls under the prohibition of Section 162. The court emphasized that if a Panchnama is merely a record of facts witnessed by Panchas and does not constitute a statement communicated to a police officer during investigation, it is not in violation of Section 162. The court highlighted that the method of recording the Panchnama, whether by Panchas themselves or dictated to them and written by a police officer, does not affect its admissibility. The court stressed that the crucial factor is whether the Panchnama contains statements communicated to a police officer during the investigation. The judgment concluded that in the absence of such statements in the Panchnama, it is admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act and does not contravene Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
