LAWS(PVC)-1933-1-14

PONNUSAMI CHETTY Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On January 16, 1933
PONNUSAMI CHETTY Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point, raised in this case is whether a statement, made by a witness to the Police in an investigation under Section criminal Procedure Code, can be filed, or exhibited, or in short, used, when the witness is under examination in an inquiry under Chap. XVIII of the Criminal! Procedure Code, in order to show that while giving evidence the witness has made assertions which he did not make when he was examined by the Police.

(2.) Statements recorded under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, can be used at a subsequent inquiry or trial for one purpose only, to contradict the witness. If they are to be used for this purpose the statements made under Section 162 must be duly proved, and used in the manner laid down in Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It follows of course that unless there is a contradiction between the statement recorded under Section 162 and the statement made by the witness in the course of his deposition, the statement recorded under Section 162 cannot be used at all. It is therefore obvious that; the question raised in this case must be answered in the negative, unless an omission from a statement under Section 162 can be said to be a contradiction of a statement made in the witness-box. Reduced to these terms the matter appears to me to be too simple to admit of; any judgment. Whether it is considered as a question of logic, or of language, "omission? and "contradiction" never be identical, If a proposition is stated, any contradictory proposition must be a statement of some, kind, whether positive or negative. To "contradiet? means to ?speak against" or in one word to "gainsay". It is absurd to say that you can contradict by keeping silence. Silence may be full of significance, but it is not "diction", and, therefore, it cannot be "contradiction".

(3.) It is clear, therefore, that a statement under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be used during an inquiry or trial in order to show that a witness is making statements in the witness-box which he did not make to the Police.