13. The Prosecutrix more or less reiterated the same facts in her evidence. In the cross examination she stated that one of the miscreants “jumped” on the rickshaw and threatened her at the point of knife that she would be killed if she raises any hue and cry. She identified appellant No.2 in the court as the one who threatened her with the knife. Relying on this part of the statement in the cross examination, learned counsel submitted that this part of the story of appellant no.2 ‘jumping on the rickshaw and threatening her at the point of knife etc. was not stated by her in the first information report given to the police. This one circumstance according to the learned counsel for the appellants belies the evidence of the Prosecutrix as she went on making improvements. We find no merit in this submission for the simple reason that the contents of the first information report were never put to the victim. It is needless to restate that the First Information Report does not constitute substantive evidence. It can, however, only be used as a previous statement for the purposes of either corroborating its maker or for contradicting him and in such a case the previous statement cannot be used unless the attention of witness has first been drawn to those parts by which it is proposed to contradict the witness. In this case the attention of the witness (PW-14) has not been drawn to those parts of the FIR which according to appellants are not in conformity with her evidence. Likewise statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can never be used as substantive evidence of truth of the facts but may be used for contradictions and corroboration of a witness who made it. The statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used to cross examine the maker of it and the result may be to show that the evidence of the witness is false. It can be used to impeach the credibility of the prosecution witness. In the present case it was for the defence to invite the victim’s attention as to what she stated in the first information report and statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for the purposes of bringing out the contradictions, if any, in her evidence. In the absence of the same the court cannot read 164 statement and compare the same with her evidence.
PARTY: UTPAL DAS & ANR. A v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Crl Apl No: 800 of 2007 – MAY 07, 2010 = [2010] 6 S.C.R. 495.
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/36319.pdf
File: utpal das
