Introduction

In criminal trials, cross-examination is a critical tool for the defense to challenge the credibility of a witness. An essential question in this process is whether the defense can cross-examine a prosecution witness using both limbs of Section 148 of The Bharatiya Saksya Adhiniyam, 2023(BSA) when referring to statements made under Section 180(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (BNSS.). This issue has been explored in depth in landmark rulings, including the famous case of Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. (1959).

Scope of Section 148 The Bharatiya Saksya Adhiniyam, 2023 of & Section 180 BNSS.

BSA, Section 148, allow cross-examination of a witness regarding their previous statements in writing, provided the purpose is either to contradict or to corroborate. However, the specific application of this rule concerning statements made under Section 180(3) BNSS. has caused considerable debate.

Section 180(3) BNSS. restricts the use of police statements to the defense only for the purpose of contradicting a prosecution witness, and not for corroboration. This restriction is emphasized in the proviso to Section 181(1) BNSS., which states that such statements can only be used to challenge the witness's credibility by showing contradictions.

Judicial Precedents: The Majority vs. The Minority View in Tahsildar Singh

In Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., the majority opinion held that the second limb of Section 145 of IEA, which allows for cross-examination specifically aimed at contradiction, applies to statements recorded under Section 180(3) BNSS. This view suggests that such statements cannot be used for any purpose other than contradiction.

However, the minority view, led by Justice Hidayatullah, argued that both limbs of Section 148 can be applied. This means that while contradiction remains the focus, the first limb of Section 145 which allows for cross-examination of prior statements without immediate reference to their contradiction should also be available when dealing with statements made under Section 180(3) BNSS.

Analysis of the Proviso to Section 181(1) BNSS.

The proviso to Section 181(1) BNSS. plays a pivotal role in determining the scope of cross-examination with respect to police statements. It limits the use of such statements to contradiction only, precluding their use for corroboration. However, this prohibition applies specifically to statements made to police officers during an investigation, and does not extend to other forms of written statements made by a witness.

The Correct Interpretation

Upon revisiting the issue, the minority view in Tahsildar Singh presents the more nuanced and correct interpretation. It acknowledges that while Section 148's first limb applies to all types of written statements, including those made to police, Section 181’s restriction only applies to contradiction and not to corroboration. Therefore, the defense should be permitted to use both limbs of Section 148 to challenge the prosecution witness's credibility—primarily through contradiction, but also potentially through other methods, where applicable.

The discussion highlights the balance between the rights of the accused to challenge a witness and the protection of witnesses from undue coercion or influence during cross-examination. The interpretation of these provisions continues to shape the procedural landscape of criminal trials.