BHAGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGAT Ram, petitioner, is being tried along with others under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Shri N.S. Saini, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jullundur.

(2.) THE police had during investigation recorded the statement of Trilochan Singh under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') to explain the delay in lodging the first information report. He was cited as a witness by the prosecution. However, during the trial he was given up as won over by the prosecution. He was called as a defence witness by the accused. He was examined as DW 4. During cross-examination, the learned State Counsel wanted to confront Trilochan Singh with his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code. The learned defence counsel objected the same on the ground that Section 162 of the Code is a complete bar to the prosecution to contradict a defence witness with his statement under Section 161 of the Code. The learned trial Magistrate, however overruled objection vide his order dated October 1, 1981. Aggrieved with that order, the petitioner has filed the present petitioner under Section 482 of the Code for quashing this order.

(3.) IT was also contended that in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, the trial Court could use a statement under Section 161 of the Code to contradict Jai Lal because the bar of Section 162 of the Code applied only to the parties and not the Court. Dealing with this submission their Lordships held :-