DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (2012)11 SCC 205
- The Supreme Court of India’s decision, in this case concerned about the inter-relation existing between Section 162 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 162(1) reads as, “a statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation done, if reduced to writing, be not signed by the person making it”, which by its very language makes it clear that law requires a statement that has been made before the investigating officer to not be signed by the witness giving it. To simplify, the witness will not be bound by his statements made before the concerned authority.
- But it is noteworthy to mention that the provision of Section 162(1) of C.r.P.c will not be applicable to the statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. While observing this, the Apex Court noted that there lies no obligation on the part of the investigating officer to obtain the initials of an accused in the statements that have been attributed to him while preparing seizure memo under Section 27 of the Act of 1872. But if such initials have been obtained then the same will not be considered unlawful.
-->
