RULINGS ON EVIDENTARY VALUE OF STATEMENTS RECORDED BYTHE POLICE UNDER SECTION 161 CODE OF CIMINAL PROCEDURE During the course of Investigation

1. Inconsistence between the evidence and the statement made during the investigation renders the witness unbelievable.(1973 Cr.LJ- SC 1025).

2. Omission to state facts before the investigating Officer shall be presumed to be after thought.(AIR 1956 SC 216 )

3. Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C will not be evidence(AIR 1997 SC 331)

4. Statements made in the investigation are not substantive evidence.(AIR 1980 SC 873)

5. Omission to state facts before the Investigating Officer condemns the testimony of the witness.(AIR 1975 Sc 216= 1975 Cr.LJ SC 262).

6. Statements made to the police by witnesses in the course of investigation cannot be used as substantive evidence- such statements cannot be used except for the purpose of contradicting under Section 145 of Evidence Act, where any part there of such statement is so used in re examination for the limited purpose of explaining the matter referred to in Cross examination. The only other exception to this embargo is where a statement falls under purview of Sec 27 or Sec 32 of Evidence Act.( AIR 1980 SC 873)= AIR 1991 SC 31.

7. A fictitious statement of witness was prepared, is not recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C faithfully. A fictitious statement has been prepared on the basis of the FIR. Under these circumstances the statement lost of its weight.( 1984(2) Cr.LC 449 ) Allahabad High Court.

8. DISCOVERY OF BLOOD STAINS ON THE SEIZED ARTICLES- PRESUMPTION OF- It is necessary and desirable that the Police Officer recovering articles which suspected stains of blood should immediately take steps to seal them and evidence should be produced that the seals were not tampered with till the articles were sent to the chemical Examiner for analysis. If such precautions are not taken, the court may not place the same reliance on the discovery of blood stains on the seized articles as it would have done if necessary precautions had been taken.(1986 Cr.LJ 513)

9. SOME OF GOLDEN PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ADMISSIBILITY AND USE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and connected with the factum of probandum. (2) The burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact which infers legal accountability.(3) In all cases whether direct or circumstantial , the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. (4) In order to justify the inference of guilt the exculpatory with the innocence of the accused, and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, and (5) If there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled to be acquitted.( 1982 Cr.LC 373)

10. Circumstantial evidence needs a careful scrutiny. Circumstantial evidence, cannot be deemed to be a safe instrument in the hands of the Prosecution to strike at and to prove the accusation against a person, as in the most of the cases, it is subjected to different interpretation and different stages.( 1983(2) Cr.LC 560)

11. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND CONVICTION; the evidence in the present case was purely circumstantial. The position of law regarding nature of evidence required in such a case is well settled. Prosecution will have to prove all the circumstances without any omission. Those circumstances put together must form a complete chain without missing link. All the circumstances should lead only to one hypothesis namely the guilt of the accused. No circumstance should suggest his innocence. In short the circumstances put together should unerringly speak only to the guilt of the accused and not in any way to his innocence.( 1984 Cr.LJ 563)

12. Circumstance to be circumstantial evidence must be proved circumstance which is compitable with the guilt of the accused and no other conclusion can be drawn other than the guilt of the accused person.

13. Benefit of doubt; The most important circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, namely that the appellant/accused was alone in the house with the deceased at the time of occurrence and that the deceased had been covered with a chader from head to toe have not been established and the other circumstances are either not established or are not correct. It cannot be said that the Prosecution has established the case against the appellant/Accused beyond reasonable doubt.( 1986 Cr.LJ 1917 )

14. Duty of Prosecution; When the facts are within the special knowledge of an accused person, he is no doubt, to place the circumstances on the record to show that his plea is a reasonable and probable one. But he is not to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt as it is the duty of the Prosecution to do.( 1983 Cr.LJ 521)

15. Conflict between the medical evidence and oral evidence; when there is conflict between the medical evidence and the oral evidence; it was held that the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 1982 Cr.LJ 113 )

16. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE- CAREFUL EVALUATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE What is more important is “ a proper and careful evaluation f circumstances in order to determine whether they are computable with any other reasonable hypothesis” ( 1984 Cr.LJ 748)

17. STANDARD OF PROOF; While considering the question whether circumstantial evidence is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, the standard of proof to be adopted must be reasonable and not fantastic. The Courts cannot be too willing to accept such fantastic probabilities as circumstances posing a hypothesis inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. Evidence” must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty, not fantastic possibilities not freak inferences but rational deductions which reasonable minds make from the probative force of facts and circumstances”