National

Witness Statements Given to Police Cannot Be Admitted as Evidence Against the Deponent in a Separate Criminal Trial: Gujarat High Court

By The Legal Alpha Web Desk · 23 October 2026 · 5 min read
Witness Statements Given to Police Cannot Be Admitted as Evidence Against the Deponent in a Separate Criminal Trial: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court set aside a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court order that had permitted an individual’s statement, recorded by investigating officers during an earlier inquiry, to be exhibited as evidence against her in a subsequent criminal case.

The ruling originated from a petition filed by Jeni Priya Sinha. In March 2017, the Gujarat Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) initiated an investigation against her husband, then a divisional engineer with Western Railway at Rajkot, over alleged bribery. During a residential search that yielded unaccounted cash, investigators examined Sinha as a witness and obtained her signature on a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Later, in December 2017, the CBI filed a separate disproportionate assets case, naming both the railway official and Sinha as co-accused. During the trial, the prosecution introduced Sinha’s previous statement through the investigating officer's deposition, and the trial court marked it as an exhibit. Sinha challenged this decision before the High Court, asserting that admitting a police statement directly into evidence against an accused violates statutory procedural protections.

Legal Topic

  • Area of Law: Criminal Law & Evidence

  • Sub-topic: Admissibility of Police Statements / Evidentiary Value of Section 161 CrPC Statements

Core Legal Issue

The High Court addressed whether an exculpatory or explanatory statement recorded by police under Section 161 CrPC during an investigation into one offence can subsequently be entered into the record as an exhibit or substantive evidence against that same person when they face prosecution as an accused in a different case.

What Did the Court Decide?

Justice M. K. Thakker quashed the CBI court's order exhibiting the petitioner’s statement, holding that statutory procedural law prohibits treating statements given to police officers as substantive evidence.

The Court ruled that statements recorded under Sections 161 and 162 of the CrPC serve limited statutory functions and cannot be introduced through an investigating officer's oral testimony as an admission or confession against an individual who later becomes an accused. The Court emphasized that this bar applies uniformly, irrespective of whether the text of the statement appears inculpatory or exculpatory on its face.

Key Legal Points

  • Absence of Substantive Value: Statements collected by police officers during an investigation under Section 161 CrPC do not constitute substantive evidence in a court of law.

  • Strict Statutory Restrictions: Under Section 162 CrPC, statements made to investigating authorities can generally be used only for the narrow purpose of contradicting a witness during cross-examination in accordance with the rules of evidence.

  • Inadmissibility Across Separate Proceedings: A witness's prior statement recorded during a search or police inquiry cannot be repurposed as an admission or confession in distinct proceedings where that deponent is later tried as an accused.

  • Irrelevance of Exculpatory Nature: The statutory bar against treating police-recorded statements as formal proof applies equally regardless of whether the assertions appear favorable or incriminating to the accused.

Relevant Law

  • Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Examination of witnesses by police during investigation.

  • Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Strict limitations and statutory prohibition against using statements recorded by police officers as substantive evidence.

  • Section 157, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Former statements of a witness used for corroboration.

  • Article 20(3), Constitution of India: Constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that exhibiting a police statement against an accused contravenes the statutory scheme governing criminal procedure and infringes upon the constitutional protection against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3). It was argued that Section 161(2) and Section 162 CrPC strictly bar the introduction of police statements as independent evidence against their maker.

Respondent (CBI)

The prosecuting agency contended that the document was not an incriminating confession but rather an exculpatory statement recorded during search proceedings. Consequently, the CBI submitted that the statement was admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act to corroborate the investigating officer's testimony.

Why Does It Matter?

This decision clarifies the evidentiary boundaries governing criminal trials, particularly in complex corruption and financial crime investigations where search statements are frequently obtained. Investigating agencies often attempt to rely on initial explanations given by witnesses during searches once those witnesses are subsequently arraigned as co-accused.

By reiterating that Section 162 CrPC imposes a blanket bar against elevating witness statements into substantive evidence or admissions, the judgment prevents investigative overreach. It ensures that trial courts cannot bypass foundational evidentiary protections simply because the prosecution categorizes an accused's earlier police-recorded statement as neutral or non-incriminatory.

Legal Takeaway

Statements provided to investigating officers under Section 161 CrPC do not carry substantive evidentiary weight and cannot be exhibited as admissions against the deponent in separate criminal trials. The statutory bar governing police statements applies strictly, regardless of whether the contents appear exculpatory or inculpatory.

Sources

Primary Source:

  • Gujarat High Court, Single Bench of Justice M. K. Thakker, Jeni Priya Sinha v. Central Bureau of Investigation / State of Gujarat (Order quashing the CBI trial court's decision on the exhibition of Section 161 CrPC statement).

Additional Sources:

  • High Court Proceedings and Trial Record Report, Special CBI Court, Ahmedabad.

Related reporting