It is noteworthy that the main body of Section 161(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly states that “Any police officer making an investigation … … may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.”
It clearly lays down that the investigating officer may examine any person under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who is supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. An accused person will also come within the scope of this expression. Therefore, an accused person can also be examined by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Sub-section (2) of Section 161 provides protection to accused / suspects during such examination by laying down that such person shall not be bound to answer the questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
Let me point out that long back, in the case of Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47, the Privy Council had held that “any person” in Section 161 Cr.P.C., would include persons then or ultimately accused.
The view was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Mandal v. State of Bihar, (1972) 1 SCC 748.
Likewise, in the case of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424 : 1978 Cri LJ 968 : AIR 1978 SC 1025, the Supreme Court held that “any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case” [in Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.] includes an accused person who fills that role because the police suppose him to have committed the crime and must, therefore, be familiar with the facts.
Therefore, it should be unequivocally clear that an accused person can also be examined by police under the provisions of Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
