https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171573 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. en-us Tue, 05 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:05:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171573 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171573