Section 181 of BNSS, 2023 — Statements to Police and Use Thereof

Introduction

Section 181 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with the legal status and permissible use of statements made by persons to the police during investigation.

The provision follows an important principle of criminal procedure: a statement made to the police during investigation is not ordinarily substantive evidence at the inquiry or trial. The law places restrictions on its use because such statements are recorded during police investigation and are not made in the same manner as testimony given before a court.

Section 181 also lays down how such a statement may be used to contradict a witness, and it specifically deals with significant omissions in a police statement.

The provision substantially continues the framework of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with updated references to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Meaning of Section 181

The basic rule under Section 181 is that when a person makes a statement to a police officer during an investigation and the statement is reduced to writing:

• the person making the statement must not sign it; and
• the statement, or the record of it, cannot ordinarily be used for any purpose at an inquiry or trial relating to the offence under investigation.

There are, however, important exceptions.

The principal exception is the use of the statement for contradicting a prosecution witness in accordance with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Thus, Section 181 is primarily a provision governing the limited evidentiary use of police statements.

Statutory Basis

Section 181 contains three important parts:

Section 181(1)

Establishes the general prohibition on using a statement made to police during investigation and provides the exception allowing its use for contradiction.

Section 181(2)

Excludes certain statements covered by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from the general restriction.

Explanation

Deals specifically with omissions in a police statement and explains when an omission may amount to a contradiction.

Object and Purpose

The purpose of Section 181 is to prevent police-recorded statements from being treated as ordinary substantive evidence at trial.

A police investigation is conducted before trial, and statements recorded during investigation are not made under the same conditions as testimony before a court. The provision therefore restricts their use while still allowing them to serve an important purpose in testing the consistency of a witness’s testimony.

The section consequently performs two functions:

• it prevents police statements from being routinely used as substantive evidence; and
• it allows the defence, and in limited circumstances the prosecution, to use such statements to expose contradictions in testimony.

Essential Elements

1. Statement Must Be Made to a Police Officer

Section 181 applies to a statement made by a person to a police officer.

The statement must therefore arise within the police investigative process contemplated by the provision.

2. Statement Must Be Made During Investigation

The statement must be made in the course of an investigation under the relevant BNSS provisions.

Section 181 is not a general rule governing every statement ever made to a police officer.

Its operation is connected with statements arising during investigation.

3. Written Statement Must Not Be Signed

If the statement is reduced to writing, the person making the statement must not sign it.

This is an important statutory safeguard.

A police statement under Section 181 should therefore not be confused with a statement or document voluntarily signed by the maker as an admission.

4. General Bar on Use at Inquiry or Trial

The written statement, its record in the police diary or elsewhere, or any part of it, cannot ordinarily be used for any purpose at an inquiry or trial concerning the offence under investigation at the time the statement was made.

This is the general rule.

The exceptions specifically recognised by the law must then be considered.

The Most Important Exception: Contradiction

The major exception concerns a person whose statement was recorded by the police and who is later called as a prosecution witness.

If that witness gives evidence in court and the earlier police statement contains material that contradicts the witness’s testimony, the statement may be used for contradiction in the manner provided by Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Who can use the statement?

The provision gives an important advantage to the accused.

The accused may use a duly proved part of the witness’s previous statement to contradict the witness.

The prosecution may also use it for contradiction, but with the permission of the Court.

This distinction is important for examination purposes.

Use in Re-Examination

Section 181 contains a further qualification.

Where a part of the previous police statement has been used to contradict the witness, another part of that statement may be used during re-examination, but only for the purpose of explaining a matter referred to during cross-examination.

Therefore, re-examination cannot be used as an opportunity to introduce the entire police statement as substantive evidence.

The use must remain connected to explaining the matter raised in cross-examination.

Police Statement Is Not Substantive Evidence

This is the central principle of Section 181.

A police statement recorded during investigation is not substantive evidence merely because it was recorded by the investigating officer.

For example, suppose a witness tells the police:

“I saw the accused at the scene at 8 p.m.”

Later, during trial, the witness gives evidence saying:

“I did not see the accused at the scene.”

The earlier police statement may become relevant for contradicting the witness, subject to the statutory procedure.

But the police statement cannot simply be treated as independent substantive evidence proving that the accused was present at the scene.

What Is Contradiction?

A contradiction occurs when the previous statement and the witness’s testimony cannot reasonably stand together on a material point.

The previous statement is used to challenge the credibility or consistency of the witness.

The contradiction must be proved in the manner required by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

The mere existence of two statements is not always enough. The court must determine whether the difference actually amounts to a contradiction in the circumstances of the case.

Omissions as Contradictions

The Explanation to Section 181 specifically deals with omissions.

An omission to state a fact or circumstance in a police statement may amount to a contradiction when:

• the omission is significant;
• it is otherwise relevant; and
• its significance is assessed in the context in which the omission occurred.

Whether a particular omission amounts to a contradiction is ultimately a question of fact.

This is an important clarification because not every omission is automatically a contradiction.

Example

Suppose a witness gives a police statement describing a person as being present at the scene but does not mention that the person was carrying a knife.

Later, during trial, the witness says that the person was carrying a knife.

The mere omission from the earlier statement does not automatically establish a contradiction.

The court must consider whether the omission was significant and relevant in the context of the statement and the circumstances of the case.

Section 181(2): Exceptions

Section 181(2) states that the restriction does not apply to certain statements falling within Section 26(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

It also preserves the effect of the proviso to Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

These provisions concern situations in which statements or confessional material may have a distinct evidentiary treatment under the law of evidence.

Therefore, Section 181 should not be read in isolation from the BSA.

Section 181 and Section 180

These two provisions are closely connected.

Section 180

Section 180 deals with the examination of witnesses by police.

It governs the questioning of persons who appear to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

Section 181

Section 181 deals with the legal use of the statements arising from that police examination.

Therefore:

Section 180 = examination by police

Section 181 = restrictions on and permitted uses of police statements

This distinction is frequently asked in examinations.

Section 181 and Section 183

Section 183 deals with recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate.

A Magistrate-recorded statement is different from an ordinary statement recorded by the police during investigation.

This distinction matters because Section 181 specifically governs statements made to the police, while statements recorded by a Magistrate fall under a different procedural framework.

Important Distinction: Police Statement and Court Testimony

A police statement and testimony given before the court are fundamentally different.

Police statement

• Made during investigation.
• Recorded by the police.
• Not ordinarily signed by the maker.
• Cannot ordinarily be used as substantive evidence.
• May be used for contradiction in accordance with law.

Court testimony

• Given during judicial proceedings.
• Subject to examination and cross-examination.
• Forms part of the evidence before the court.
• Is evaluated by the court in accordance with the applicable evidence law.

Therefore, a police statement cannot simply replace testimony given in court.

Procedure for Using a Police Statement for Contradiction

When a prosecution witness gives evidence that differs from the witness’s earlier police statement, the previous statement may be used for contradiction.

The general process is:

1. The witness gives evidence before the court.
2. The witness’s previous police statement is identified.
3. The relevant contradictory portion is brought to the witness’s attention in accordance with the law.
4. The contradiction is proved according to Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
5. The court considers the contradiction while assessing the credibility of the witness.

The accused has the statutory right to use the relevant part of the previous statement for contradiction.

The prosecution requires the permission of the Court to use it for this purpose.

Rights of the Accused

Section 181 provides an important procedural advantage to the accused.

Where a prosecution witness has previously made a written statement to the police, the accused can use a duly proved part of that statement to contradict the witness.

This is significant during cross-examination because inconsistencies between the witness’s earlier statement and present testimony can affect the credibility of the witness.

However, contradiction is different from proving the truth of everything contained in the previous statement.

Rights of the Prosecution

The prosecution is not completely prohibited from using a previous police statement.

With the permission of the Court, the prosecution may use the relevant part of the statement to contradict its own witness where necessary.

This becomes particularly relevant when a prosecution witness departs materially from the earlier version given during investigation.

The statement may then be used in the limited manner permitted by Section 181.

Important Case Law

Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

This Supreme Court decision under the earlier CrPC framework is one of the leading authorities concerning the use of previous statements made to police for contradiction.

The Court examined the meaning of contradiction and the treatment of omissions in police statements.

The case is particularly important for understanding that every omission is not necessarily a contradiction. The omission must be material and significant in the context of the case.

The principles of the decision remain relevant to Section 181 BNSS because the provision substantially continues the earlier statutory framework, although the cross-reference has now been updated to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

State of Rajasthan v. Kalki

The Supreme Court discussed the distinction between material contradictions and minor discrepancies in witness testimony.

The decision is useful when assessing whether a difference between earlier and later versions is sufficiently significant to affect the credibility of a witness.

Not every discrepancy destroys the reliability of testimony. Courts distinguish between material contradictions and minor variations that naturally occur in human recollection.

V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand

The Supreme Court explained the procedural requirements involved in using a previous statement for contradiction.

The case reinforces the principle that a previous statement cannot simply be placed before the court and treated as a contradiction without following the prescribed procedure.

The witness must be confronted with the relevant portion in accordance with the law.

BNSS and CrPC

Section 181 BNSS substantially corresponds to Section 162 of the CrPC, 1973.

The central rule has been retained:

• police statements are not ordinarily signed by the maker;
• such statements cannot ordinarily be used as substantive evidence at trial;
• they may be used for contradiction in the manner prescribed by evidence law; and
• significant omissions may amount to contradictions.

The main structural change is the replacement of references to the Indian Evidence Act with corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The contradiction procedure is now linked to Section 148 BSA.

Section 181 also expressly refers to the relevant provisions of the BSA concerning statements and confessions.

Constitutional Connection

Section 181 supports the broader principles of fair trial and procedural fairness.

If police statements recorded during investigation could automatically be treated as substantive evidence, an accused could face serious prejudice because such statements are generally recorded outside the safeguards associated with courtroom testimony.

The restriction therefore helps maintain the distinction between investigative material and evidence properly tested in judicial proceedings.

The provision also works alongside the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), although the specific rule governing the use of police statements is statutory.

Common Confusions

Can a police statement be used as substantive evidence?

Ordinarily, no.

Section 181 creates a general bar against using such statements for purposes at the inquiry or trial, subject to the statutory exceptions.

Can the accused use a police statement?

Yes.

The accused may use a duly proved part of the statement of a prosecution witness to contradict that witness in accordance with Section 148 of the BSA.

Can the prosecution use the statement to contradict its own witness?

Yes, but with the permission of the Court.

Does the witness sign the police statement?

No.

If the statement is reduced to writing during investigation, Section 181 expressly provides that it is not to be signed by the person making it.

Is every omission a contradiction?

No.

The Explanation provides that an omission may amount to a contradiction where it is significant and otherwise relevant in the context. Whether it amounts to contradiction is a question of fact.

Is a police statement the same as a confession?

No.

A police statement under Section 181 and a confession have different legal frameworks. Confessions and their admissibility are governed by the applicable provisions of the BNSS and BSA.

Is Section 181 BNSS the same as Section 181 CrPC?

No.

Section 181 BNSS corresponds substantially to Section 162 CrPC.

The numbering changed when the BNSS replaced the CrPC.

Example

Suppose a witness tells the police during investigation that they saw the accused near the scene of the crime at 9 p.m.

During trial, the witness states:

“I never saw the accused near the scene.”

The earlier police statement cannot simply be treated as substantive evidence proving the accused’s presence.

However, the defence may use the relevant portion of the earlier statement to contradict the witness, following the procedure prescribed by the BSA.

The court may then consider the contradiction while assessing the witness’s credibility.

Another Example: Omission

Suppose a witness tells the police that they saw the accused leaving the scene but does not mention that the accused was carrying a particular weapon.

During trial, the witness introduces the weapon for the first time.

The omission is not automatically a contradiction.

The court must determine whether the omission was sufficiently significant and relevant in the circumstances to amount to a contradiction.

Important BNSS Provisions

• Section 179 — Police officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses.
• Section 180 — Examination of witnesses by police.
• Section 181 — Statements to police and use thereof.
• Section 182 — No inducement to be offered.
• Section 183 — Recording of confessions and statements.
• Section 192 — Diary of proceedings in investigation.

Relationship with BSA

Section 181 cannot be fully understood without reference to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The BNSS determines the procedural treatment of statements made during police investigation, while the BSA governs important evidentiary questions concerning their use.

The most important cross-reference is Section 148 BSA, which governs the use of previous written statements for contradiction.

Therefore, for examination purposes:

BNSS Section 181 tells us that the police statement has restricted use; BSA Section 148 explains the manner in which a previous written statement is used for contradiction.

Topic at a Glance

• Section: 181, BNSS
• Subject: Statements to police and use thereof.
• Corresponding CrPC provision: Section 162.
• General rule: A statement made to police during investigation and reduced to writing cannot ordinarily be used at inquiry or trial.
• Signature: The person making the written statement does not sign it.
• Principal exception: Relevant portions may be used to contradict a prosecution witness.
• Accused: May use the statement for contradiction if duly proved.
• Prosecution: May use it for contradiction with the Court’s permission.
• Re-examination: Another portion may be used only to explain a matter referred to in cross-examination.
• Omissions: A significant and relevant omission may amount to contradiction.
• Important BSA provision: Section 148.
• Important cases: Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh; State of Rajasthan v. Kalki; V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand.
• Core principle: Police statements are generally not substantive evidence.

Quick Revision

• Section 181 BNSS = Statements to police and use thereof.
• It substantially corresponds to Section 162 CrPC.
• A written statement made to police during investigation must not be signed by the maker.
• Such a statement is not ordinarily admissible as substantive evidence at inquiry or trial.
• The accused may use a relevant part of the statement to contradict a prosecution witness.
• The prosecution may use it for contradiction with the permission of the Court.
• Contradiction must be established according to Section 148 of the BSA.
• A part of the statement may be used in re-examination only to explain a matter raised in cross-examination.
• Every omission is not a contradiction.
• A significant and relevant omission may amount to contradiction depending on the context.
• Section 181(2) preserves the operation of specified provisions of the BSA.
• Important case: Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
• Remember the distinction:
  • Section 180: Police examination of witnesses.
  • Section 181: Use of statements made during that examination.
  • Section 183: Recording of confessions and statements by Magistrate.
• The key phrase for exams is: Police statement is generally used for contradiction, not as substantive evidence.

ALSO READ: Section 180 – Examination of witnesses by police

Conclusion

Section 181 establishes an important evidentiary safeguard within the investigative process. A statement made to the police during investigation is not ordinarily treated as substantive evidence at trial. Its principal permitted use is to test the consistency and credibility of a witness by contradicting the witness in accordance with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

The provision also makes clear that an omission is not automatically a contradiction; its significance must be assessed in the context of the case. By retaining the basic principle of Section 162 CrPC while updating the cross-references to the BSA, Section 181 continues the distinction between investigative statements recorded by police and evidence properly tested before a court.