Issue no.

2 Whether the statement of Mr Vibhu recorded under section 161 CrPC

admissible in the court of the law?

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that section 161 CrPC is not admissible in the court
because the statement of witnesses recorded by the police under section 161 of CrPC during the
investigation cannot be used for seeking corroboration or assurance for the testimony of a witness in court.

2.1 Police not bound to record the statement of witness

A police officer investigating a case is not bound to record the statement of the witness in writing, but the
gist of such a statement should be recorded by him. It is crystal clear in the catena of judgement that the
statement of the witness was recorded under Section 161 CrPC. does not fall within the ambit of evidence.
Such evidence is only for confrontation in cross-examination. CrPC gives for a pre-trial procedure where
police officers investigate, collect evidence and make arrests. But the value of statements made during such
procedure is not evidentiary, meaning they cannot be used against the witness. The object of the section is
to protect the accused both against over-zealous police officers and untruthful witnesses.
The statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 CrPC., being whole, inadmissible in evidence,
cannot be taken into consideration.
in the case, of Parvat Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - (Supreme Court) (02 Mar 2020)
Statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or
omissions.

2.2 Cannot be considered substantive evidence

Substantial evidence means that degree of relevant evidence which a reasonable person, considering the
record as a whole, might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even though other reasonable persons
might disagree. This is a lower standard of proof than preponderance of the evidence.The statement given
to the police is not under oath nor has it been tested by cross-examination, hence according to the law of
evidence, such a statement is not considered substantive evidence.

In the case of R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala (2013), the Supreme Court held that evidence given in a court
under the oath has great sanctity, which is why the same is called substantive evidence. Statements under
Section 161 CrPC can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and statement.

In the case, 300 GRAMATAN AVENUE ASSOCIATES, Respondent v. STATE DIVISION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS This case states that substantial evidence is material related to the charge or
controversy which involves a weighing of the quality and quantity of the proof. Substantial evidence is
relevant proof that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact.