Police statement omissions are not automatic contradictions; only real inconsistencies may be used in cross-examination and credibility testing.

Section 162 CrPC bars use of police statements except for contradiction in the manner permitted by Section 145 of the Evidence Act, and a bare omission is not a contradiction unless it amounts by necessary implication or inherent inconsistency to a real contradiction. On that footing, the accused could not insist on cross-examination based on every omission, and the refusal of such questions caused no shown prejudice or unfairness. The use of the FIR to assess alleged improvements and inconsistencies was also not treated as legal error, because it was only one circumstance in evaluating the prosecution evidence. The appeal therefore failed on the evidence and admissibility issues raised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements made by a witness to the police under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be used in cross-examination beyond contradiction, including by relying on omissions as such. (ii) Whether the refusal to permit the proposed questions on omissions deprived the accused of an effective cross-examination and a fair trial. (iii) Whether the High Court erred in using the first information report to test the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

Issue (i): Whether statements made by a witness to the police under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be used in cross-examination beyond contradiction, including by relying on omissions as such.

Analysis: The statutory bar in Section 162 is general and the exception is limited to using a recorded statement to contradict a prosecution witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A bare omission is not automatically a contradiction. Only those omissions which are part of the statement by necessary implication, or which create an inherent inconsistency or irreconcilability with the deposition in court, can be treated as contradictions. The provision does not permit a witness to be cross-examined to elicit his unrecorded police statement or to transform every material omission into a contradiction.

Conclusion: The accused had no right to use omissions as such, and only omissions amounting to real contradiction were admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to permit the proposed questions on omissions deprived the accused of an effective cross-examination and a fair trial.

Analysis: The disallowed questions were not framed as true contradictions and, in any event, the particular omissions relied upon did not satisfy the test of irreconcilability. The presence of a gas lantern could coexist with the mention of lantern light and moonlight, and the alleged scrutiny of the dead bodies was not inconsistent with the earlier version of the occurrence. The record also showed that the defence did not pursue other alleged omissions after the trial court's ruling. The accused therefore failed to show that the trial was rendered unfair or that any material prejudice was caused.

Conclusion: The accused were not deprived of a fair trial, and no prejudice was established.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court erred in using the first information report to test the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

Analysis: The High Court referred to the first information report only to meet the defence criticism that the prosecution evidence showed improvements and discrepancies. The report was used as one circumstance in assessing consistency and opportunity of identification, not as a substitute for substantive evidence. The witnesses were believed on the strength of the entire evidence, and the minor variations in the report did not displace the finding of guilt.

Conclusion: No legal error was shown in the High Court's approach to the first information report.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the challenged omissions were not shown to be admissible contradictions, no miscarriage of justice was established, and the findings of guilt were supported by the evidence on record.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a police statement can be used only for contradiction under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and only such omissions as amount by necessary implication or inherent inconsistency to a real contradiction are open to use for that purpose.

---