Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the conviction of the accused which was based on the investigation officer’s statements proving the witness statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Renuka Prasad v. The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police (2025). 

What was the Background of Renuka Prasad v. The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police (2025) Case?   

• This case involves a murder where 71 out of 87 prosecution witnesses turned hostile, including key eyewitnesses who failed to identify the assailants. 
• The victim was an employee who had resigned from an institution managed by A1 (first accused) and joined an institution managed by PW4 (brother of A1). 
• According to the prosecution, A1 harbored enmity toward the deceased because the deceased actively supported PW4 in a sibling rivalry over the division of family assets. 
• The prosecution alleged that A1, along with his employees (A2 to A4), engaged two contract killers (A5 and A6) through an advocate (A7) to murder the deceased. 
• The deceased was allegedly hacked to death in front of his son (PW8) at 7:45 PM on April 28, 2011, and died at 8:40 PM the same day. 
• PW8, who filed the First Information Statement, failed to identify the assailants or weapons at trial despite initially claiming ability to do so. 
• The Trial Court acquitted all accused due to insufficient evidence as most witnesses turned hostile. 
• The High Court reversed the Trial Court's decision and convicted A1 to A6 under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, while upholding A7's acquittal. 
• The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the appellants challenged the High Court's reversal of the acquittal.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court improperly relied on testimony from Police Officers regarding statements made during investigation, which cannot be treated as gospel truth without witness corroboration at trial. 
• Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) clearly establishes that statements made to police officers during investigation (Section 161 statements) can only be used for contradicting witnesses, not as substantive evidence. 
• The Court found that witnesses turning hostile either means they were persuaded/coerced into changing their statements or they never made such statements to police officers in the first place. 
• The seizures and recoveries relied upon by the High Court were not valid as evidence since independent witnesses who attested to the mahazars (records of seizure) turned hostile. 
• Cash recovered from the accused (A2 to A6) had no proven connection to the crime and was not a recovery under Section 27, making it inadmissible as evidence. 
• The confession under Section 27 could not be relied upon to implicate other accused as it violated Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
• The High Court's reversal of the Trial Court's acquittal was based on mere surmises and conjectures, improperly relying on the testimony of Investigating Officers reciting Section 161 statements. 
• The High Court's assumption that mass witness hostility was due to influence wielded by the accused was deemed presumptuous and fallacious by the Supreme Court. 
• Despite sharing the High Court's consternation over the cold-blooded murder, the Supreme Court could not rely on inadmissible Section 161 statements, unproven voluntary statements, or recoveries not connected to the crime. 
• The Court acknowledged that witness hostility could stem from various factors including fear, political pressure, family pressure, societal pressure, or monetary considerations. 
• Thus, the Court acquitted the accused persons and reversed the judgment of the High Court. 

What is Section 161 of CrPC? 

• This provision is contained in Section 180 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• Section 180 of BNSS deals with police examination of witnesses during investigation and consists of three subsections with additional provisos.  
• Under subsection (1):  
  • Any investigating police officer or authorized police officer (of rank prescribed by State Government) can orally examine persons believed to have knowledge of the case.  
• Under subsection (2), the examined person must:   
  • Answer all questions truthfully related to the case.  
  • Not be compelled to answer questions that may incriminate them or expose them to penalty/forfeiture.  
• Under subsection (3), the police officer:   
  • May record written statements during examination.  
  • Must maintain separate and true records for each person's statement.  
  • Can record statements through audio-video electronic means.  
• Special provisions are made for recording statements of women victims:   
  • Applies to offences under Sections 64-71, 74-79, and 124 of BNS.  
  • Statements must be recorded by either: a. A woman police officer, or b. Any woman officers.  
• The section aims to:   
  • Facilitate proper investigation.  
  • Protect witness rights against self-incrimination.  
  • Ensure proper documentation of witness statements.  
  • Provide gender-sensitive handling of women victims' cases.