Siddhartha Associates- Siddhartha Jangam

  Introduction In a significant ruling aimed at safeguarding the rights of the accused, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shailesh Kumar v. State of UP (now State of Uttarakhand) [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 162], has held that an accused is entitled to cross-examine a police officer with reference to the contents of a case diary if the officer uses it to refresh his memory or when the court relies on the diary for contradiction purposes. The bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti delved into the interplay between Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Sections 145 and 161 of the Indian Evidence Act , reaffirming the principle of fair trial. Legal Framework Section 172(3) CrPC: This provision bars the accused from demanding production of the case diary or accessing it during trial. However, exceptions arise when: The police officer refers to it to refresh memory , or The court uses it to contradict the officer . Section 145, Ind...

  Analyzing the Use of Police Statements under CrPC & BNSS vis-à-vis Cross-Examination under Evidence Laws Introduction : To fully grapple with the evidentiary implications of statements made to police officers during investigation, it is essential to closely examine the corresponding provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), particularly Section 162(1) CrPC and Section 181(1) BNSS, along with their respective provisos. Additionally, one must analyse Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and its successor provision, Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which govern cross-examination based on prior written statements. 1. The Statutory Provisions Compared a) Section 162(1) CrPC, 1973 and Section 181(1) BNSS, 2023 Both sections lay down a general embargo on the use of statements made to a police officer during an investigation. Such statements cannot be signed by the maker and are ...