Even when a crime is perpetrated in front of us, we, the supposedly civilized members of society, are the least sensitive. We dissociate ourselves from both the victim and the watchful sides. The so-called elegant people of society avoid court appearances until absolutely necessary.
This claim was brought in the legal proceeding Appabhai v. State of Gujarat. Because the prosecution was unable to submit objective witnesses, the Hon'ble Apex Court made a note of it in this case. A pre-trial procedure, also called a pre-trial process, is a series of actions that must be taken before a court trial can start. A police investigation is one of the pretrial process's many steps.
The most important justification for conducting an investigation is the gathering of evidence. Two essential steps in the investigation process are the identification and detention of the suspected offender, as well as the search of areas and the seizure of objects deemed necessary for the investigation, inquiry, or trial.
POLICE INVESTIGATES WITNESSES:
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. requires the police to examine witnesses. This provision permits a police officer conducting an investigation to talk with a person with knowledge of the facts and to record that person's statement in writing. The taking of statements by the investigating authorities shouldn't take too long.
In a case where there was an unexplained wait of 10 days and certain inconsistencies as well, the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that while the inconsistencies by themselves might not be of great significance, when taken into account in light of the examination's delay, the evidence is dubious.
Nonetheless, the investigating officer should be specifically questioned about the delay and its causes. When a victim of an offense was examined after the fact without explanation, it was decided that this cast suspicion on the prosecution's case. When the delay is adequately justified, it might not negatively affect the testimony of a certain eyewitness.
The statements of witnesses that a police officer interviews during an inquiry are not required to be reduced to writing, although it is preferable that he notes at least the essence of such statements. If he fails to record even the essence of the comments, the Court may take that into account when considering the evidence since it's likely that the witness's entire case may have collapsed if his earlier statement had been refuted in the witness box.
Police statements' admissibility as evidence:
The witness signature on a statement is essentially not required under Section 161 of the CrPC because this technique is forbidden by Section 162 of the CrPC. When witnesses testify in court, a violation of this Section could make their testimony less credible.
Yet, it is not required by law to disregard a statement made during an investigation simply because someone else's signature was found on it. But, in this situation, the court must be cautious when assessing any evidence that the witness who made the fabricated statement may provide in court.
The Apex Court stated that Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not specify that a witness's testimony in court is declared inadmissible in its decision in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and others (1999). Furthermore, it only serves as a warning to the court and may necessitate a comprehensive investigation of the facts if it turns out that the witness signed the statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation at the officer's request.
Even though the tape of the Investigating Officer's remarks has some defects, it is nonetheless crucial for the start of the court proceedings. The main objective of Criminal Procedure Code Section 161 is to protect the accused from both aggressive police officers and unreliable witnesses. Thus, there needs to be tighter control and oversight that keeps an eye on the police when they question witnesses.
This will almost certainly result in a more effective way to examine witnesses without the use of force or impolite police behavior, and this action will almost certainly result in voluntary witnessing in the near future.
If the case has been filed in Delhi then a lawyer in Delhi may be hired. Moreover, if the case has been filed in Lucknow then a lawyer in Lucknow may be hired. Lawyers in Ghaziabad can be appointed if the case has been filed in Ghaziabad.
To address the issue, Lead India provides a variety of knowledge, legal services, and free legal advice. To get the best guidance in this case, ask a legal question and talk to a lawyer .
Visit us: https://www.leadindia.law
Call Us: +91–8800788535
Email: care@leadindia.law
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/leadindialaw
Twitter: https://twitter.com/leadindialaw
Pinterest: https://in.pinterest.com/lawleadindia
Comments