MUNNA PANDEY versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 04-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
MUNNA PANDEY
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1271-1272 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
[B.R. GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA AND 
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court erred in confi rming 
the conviction and death sentence passed by trial court against appellant-
accused for off ences punishable u/ss.302, 376, IPC and s.4, POCSO Act, 
2012, despite serious lapses in the entire investigation.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 376 – Protection of Children from Sexual 
Off ences Act, 2012 – s.4 – Serious lapses in investigation, confi rmation 
of conviction and death sentence – Propriety: 
Held: s.162, CrPC does not prevent a Judge from looking into the 
record of the police investigation – Being a case of rape and murder of a 10 
year old girl and as the evidence was not free from doubt, the Trial Judge 
ought to have acquainted himself with the important material and also with 
what the only important witnesses of the prosecution had said during the 
police investigation – There is nothing in s.162, CrPC which prevents a Trial 
Judge from looking into the papers of the chargesheet suo motu and himself 
using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for 
the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favour of 
the State as a prosecution witness – The Judge may do this or he may make 
over the recorded statement to the lawyer for the accused so that he may use 
it for this purpose – Case of the witnesses before the police was that it was 
co-accused who had come to the house of the victim on the fateful day and 
had taken her to his house to watch TV – All the statements further reveal 
that it was co-accused who was found locking the door when the witnesses 
enquired with him about the whereabouts of the victim– However, neither 
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 1005 : 2023 INSC 793
1005
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
the defence counsel nor the public prosecutor nor the presiding offi  cer of the 
Trial Court and even the High Court thought fi t to look into the aforesaid 
aspect of the matter and try to reach to the truth – The presiding offi  cer of 
the Trial Court remained a mute spectator – It was the duty of the presiding 
offi  cer to put relevant questions to these witnesses in exercise of his powers 
u/s.165, Evidence Act – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter remitted 
back to the High Court for deciding the reference u/s.366, CrPC keeping 
in mind the serious lapses on the part of the defence in not proving major 
contradictions in the form of material omissions surfacing from the oral 
evidence of the prosecution witnesses – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
– ss.162, 366 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.165. [Paras 39, 40, 43, 47 and 73]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.162 – Proviso – ‘Purpose’ 
mentioned therein:
Held: s.162 says that no statement made by any person to a police 
offi  cer in the course of an investigation, whether it be recorded or not, shall 
be used for the purpose save as provided in the fi rst proviso to the Section 
– The fi rst proviso says that when any witness, whose statement has been 
reduced into writing by the police in accordance with the provisions of 
the CrPC, is called for the prosecution in inquiry or trial the accused with 
the permission of the court may contradict the witnesses in the manner 
provided by s.145, Evidence Act – The purpose mentioned in the proviso 
is the purpose of contradicting the evidence given in favour of the State by 
a prosecution witness in Court by the use of the previous statement made 
by such witness to the police offi  cer – Purpose is to discredit the evidence 
given in favour of the prosecution by a witness for the State – The Section 
prohibits the use of the statement for any other purpose than this – It does 
not say that the statement can only be used at the request of the accused 
– The limitation or restriction imposed in the fi rst part of s.162 relates to 
this purpose for which the statement may be used; it does not relate to the 
procedure which may be adopted to eff ect this purpose – The proviso which 
sets out the limited purpose also mentions the way in which an accused 
person may contradict the witness with his previous statement made to the 
Police, but it does not in any other way aff ect the power that lies in the Court 
to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu – Evidence 
Act, 1872 – s.165. [Para 46]
1007
Practice and Procedure

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.