Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 181
Statements to police and use thereof
(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made: Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (a) of section 26 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; or to affect the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 23 of that Adhiniyam. Explanation.—An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.
Why this exists
This provision continues a long-standing rule (originally Section 162 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure) meant to prevent police statements — often recorded informally, without oath, cross-examination, or safeguards — from being treated as reliable trial evidence. Colonial-era experience showed that police statements could be coerced, exaggerated, or inaccurately recorded, so lawmakers restricted their use strictly to catching inconsistencies, protecting the accused's right to challenge witnesses while preventing police statements from becoming a shortcut to conviction.
How courts read it
The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) clarified when an omission in a police statement becomes a real 'contradiction' — holding that only omissions significant enough to imply the witness is saying something different in court qualify, not every missing detail. Courts have consistently held that police statements are not substantive evidence and can never be used to corroborate a witness, only to contradict or, in limited re-examination, to explain a contradiction already raised. This BNSS provision (like its predecessor) codifies that judicial approach directly into the explanation clause.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: A police statement recorded during investigation can be read out in court as solid proof of the facts.
Fact: It cannot be treated as substantive evidence at all — it can only be used to contradict the witness if they say something different in court. - Myth: Any small difference between the police statement and courtroom testimony automatically counts as a lie or contradiction.
Fact: Courts assess whether the omission or difference is significant and contextually relevant; trivial or explainable gaps do not automatically count as contradictions. - Myth: Dying declarations and statements leading to recovery of objects are also blocked by this rule.
Fact: Subsection (2) specifically exempts these — they can be used as substantive evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, unlike ordinary police statements.