The Kerala High Court has set aside a Sessions Court order that prevented the defence from using Section 161 CrPC statements to contradict prosecution witnesses during cross-examination.
Justice A. Badharudeen passed the ruling in Lawrence v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:34799). The Court held that an accused has the right to use prior statements of witnesses for contradiction during cross-examination.
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
They challenged a Sessions Court order that barred the defence from using previous statements of Prosecution Witnesses 1, 2, and 3 during cross-examination.
Advocate J.R. Prem Navaz appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate M.P. Prasanth represented the respondent.
Sessions Court Refused Use of Prior Statements
During the trial, defence counsel attempted to confront the prosecution witnesses with their earlier statements recorded by the investigating officer.
However, the Sessions Judge disallowed the attempt. The Judge took the view that Section 162 CrPC prohibited such use of prior statements.
As a result, the defence could not use the statements to challenge the witnesses’ testimony.
High Court Examines Sections 161 and 162 CrPC
The High Court closely examined the scope of Sections 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court clarified that statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC do not constitute substantive evidence. However, Section 162 specifically permits their use for contradicting a witness during cross-examination.
The Bench observed that the Sessions Judge had misunderstood the purpose and operation of these provisions.
Accused Has a Right to Contradict Witnesses
Justice Badharudeen rejected the reasoning adopted by the Sessions Court.
The Court held that Section 162 CrPC does not prohibit the use of Section 161 statements for contradiction. Instead, it expressly allows such use in the manner prescribed under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Bench drew a distinction between using a statement for contradiction and using it as substantive evidence. While the latter is not permissible, the former is legally recognised.
The Court observed:
“It is the absolute right of the accused to use previous statements during cross-examination of the maker of the same for the purpose of contradicting the maker.”
According to the Court, this forms an essential part of effective cross-examination and helps test the credibility of a witness.
Sessions Court Order Set Aside
The High Court found the Sessions Judge’s reasoning legally unsustainable.
It held that the grounds cited for rejecting the use of prior statements were incorrect in law.
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order.
Witnesses to Be Recalled
Allowing the revision petition, the High Court directed the Sessions Court to recall Prosecution Witnesses 1, 2, and 3.
The Court also directed the Sessions Judge to permit the defence to cross-examine these witnesses using their earlier statements.
The Bench clarified that the exercise must comply with Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which corresponds to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court reaffirmed that an accused has a statutory right to use Section 161 CrPC statements to contradict witnesses during cross-examination. The Court also directed the recall of three prosecution witnesses to ensure the defence can exercise that right.
Case Details
Case Title: Lawrence v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:34799
