Entire CrPc in Hindi With PDF Notes - Examination of witnesses by Police (S. 160, 161, 162, 163)

160. Police officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses.
161. Examination of witnesses by police.
162. Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence.
163. No inducement to be offered.

section 160 police officer’s power to require
attendance of witness
A police officer investigating an offence can require the attendance before
himself under section 160 if the following conditions are satisfied
1. Order requiring the attendance must be in writing
2 the person whose attendance is required must be acquainted with facts and
circumstances of the case
3 the witness must be within the limits of police station or is within limits
of adjoining police station
Exception under 160
1 no male person under the age of 15 years
2 no Male person over the age of 65 years
3 women
4 mentally or physically disabled person
The above categories of person have an exemption under section 160 and the
investigating police officer is required to to examine them in the place
where they reside.
Reasonable expenses as per the state government rule is to be provided by the
police officer to the witness so required.
When a witness who is required under section 160 intentionally omits to
attend section 174 IPC is triggered.
The investigating officer cannot use force for compulsion nor arrest.
Magistrate cannot issue process for requiring attendance of witness under
section 160.
Non compliance of section 160 by a witness does not attract section 188 IPC
section 161 examination of witnesses by police
An investigating officer may examine orally any person who is acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of the case.
Object of section 161 is to obtain evidence which may later be produced at
trial.
Before trial, copies of such statement are to be furnished to the accused
free of cost.
the person who is examined by the police under is duty bound to answer all
the questions truly related to such case put to him.
in case where the person giving oral examination under section 161 is called
as prosecution witness section 145 Indian Evidence act will be triggered.
However this does not include answers to which which chances of exposing him
to a criminal charge or penalty or forfeiture.
Subsection 2 of section 161 is protected by article 20 clause 3.
Section 179 IPC will be triggered where person being legally bound to answer
truly all questions relating to such case refuses to answers any such
question put to him.
Section 193 IPC will be triggered is such a person gives and answer which is
false and which he the nose or believes to be false or does not believe to be
true.
probability of triggering section 177 IPC for furnishing false information is
also High.
Section 202 and 203 of IPC might also be triggered.
The statements made by witness during examination under section 161 may be
reduced into writing by the investigating officer and the investigating
officer shall make a separate and true record of such statement.
this provision gives wide discretion to the investigating officer to record
or not to record such statement during investigation.
This is logical as it is seen in practicality that police officers
investigating the crime might be transferred in between the investigation
there for the next officer who will put his hand into investigation will have
a ready record available for his reference.
This statement it shall not be signed by the person making it it is provided
under section 162 subsection 1.
Statement has a wide meaning includes oral, gesture
The supreme court in Nandini satpathy case extensively discussed section 161
subsection 2 to read along with the Ambit of article 20 clause 3 of the
constitution.
he is entitled to keep his mouth shut if the answer has capability of
exposing him to guilt in some other accusation even though that investigation
is not with reference to that accusation.
Miranda vs Arizona
● The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda,
who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery.
● Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation.
During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to
committing the crimes, which the police apparently recorded.
● Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade and had a history of mental
instability, had no counsel present.
● At trial, the prosecution's case consisted solely of his confession.
Miranda was convicted of both rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to
30 years in prison.
● He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had
unconstitutionally obtained his confession.
● The court disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction.

[sanyajain]

can u share the link for frame of charges