1. Introduction

This case pertains to the evidentiary limits imposed on police testimony, particularly regarding statements recorded during investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The core question before the Supreme Court was whether Investigating Officers (IOs) could narrate and rely upon witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC to establish motive, conspiracy, and preparation for a crime when the actual witnesses turned hostile.

2. Facts of the Case

• The appellant, Renuka Prasad, was previously acquitted by the Trial Court due to a lack of substantive evidence. Many prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
• On appeal, the High Court reversed the acquittal, placing significant reliance on the testimony of the Investigating Officer (IO), who narrated the content of witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
• The IO claimed that these statements revealed motive, conspiracy, and preparation for the offence.

3. Legal Issues

The following legal issues arose before the Supreme Court:

1. Can the prosecution rely on the testimony of the Investigating Officer about what witnesses said during investigation under Section 161 CrPC, even when the witnesses themselves turned hostile?
2. Are such statements substantive evidence, or are they barred under Section 162 CrPC?
3. Can such police testimony be used to establish guilt?

4. Statutory Framework

Provision	Content	Relevance
Section 161 CrPC	Examination of witnesses by police during investigation.	Statements are not substantive evidence.
Section 162 CrPC	Prohibits the use of 161 statements as evidence, except to contradict the witness.	Bars IO from testifying about 161 statements unless for contradiction.
Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872	Admissibility of information leading to discovery of fact.	Limited exception to inadmissibility of confessions.
Sections 25 & 26, Evidence Act	Bar on confessions made to police or in police custody, unless before magistrate.	Prevents voluntary confessions from being sole basis for conviction.

5. Arguments by the Parties

Appellant’s Counsel:

• Contended that the High Court erred in reversing acquittal based solely on IO’s testimony regarding inadmissible Section 161 statements.
• Argued that hostile witnesses cannot be substituted with the IO’s summary of their statements.

Respondent State:

• Justified reliance on IO testimony under the precedents of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001) and Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020).
• Claimed police could be treated as reliable witnesses.

6. Supreme Court’s Observations and Findings

The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, restoring the acquittal. The key findings were:

• Section 161 CrPC statements are not substantive evidence. They can only be used to contradict the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act if the witness is examined and denies the statement.
• Investigating Officer’s testimony about 161 statements cannot be used to prove facts like motive, conspiracy, or preparation if the witnesses do not support them during trial.

“Merely because the IOs spoke of such statements having been made by the witnesses during investigation, does not give them any credibility…”

• The prosecution failed to establish guilt through direct witness testimony. As all key witnesses turned hostile, and their prior statements could not be proved, the evidence lacked legal sanctity.
• Section 27 of the Evidence Act allows police testimony only for recoveries of physical evidence, not for hearsay statements of witnesses.
• The Court distinguished earlier cases like State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, observing that those pertained to recovery of material evidence, not testimonial narration of Section 161 statements.

7. Conclusion of the Judgment

• The appeal was allowed.
• The High Court’s judgment was overturned.
• The Supreme Court reinstated the acquittal, holding that no conviction can be based solely on Investigating Officer’s reference to Section 161 CrPC statements, especially when the actual witnesses have turned hostile.

8. Significance of the Case

This judgment reiterates two essential principles:

1. Police officers cannot be used as substitutes for hostile prosecution witnesses.
2. Procedural safeguards under Sections 161 and 162 CrPC must be strictly adhered to, as they protect against wrongful convictions based on inadmissible evidence.

9. Impact on Criminal Jurisprudence

• Strengthens the rights of the accused by affirming evidentiary protections.
• Clarifies the limited admissibility of statements made to police during investigation.
• Ensures that convictions must be based on substantive evidence, not hearsay.