​The Supreme Court of India has recently emphasized the procedural requirements for using a witness’s prior statement to the police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to contradict their testimony in court.

In the case of Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), decided on February 13, 2025, the Court clarified that portions of a witness’s Section 161 CrPC statement used for contradiction must be formally proved through the investigating officer. These portions should be marked by the trial judge and cannot be reproduced in the witness’s deposition unless duly proved. The Court observed that the trial court had erred by merely reproducing the contradicted portions in brackets without proving them through the investigating officer, leading to the acquittal of the appellant due to insufficient evidence. ​

Additionally, the Court has reiterated that a witness will not be entirely discredited solely because their testimony in court contradicts their earlier statement to the police. Such contradictions can be used to challenge the witness’s credibility but do not automatically render their entire testimony unreliable. The Court emphasized that minor discrepancies do not necessarily undermine the overall trustworthiness of a witness’s account.

These rulings underscore the importance of adhering to established legal procedures when utilizing prior statements to impeach a witness’s testimony and highlight the nuanced approach courts take in evaluating contradictions in witness statements.​

Sources