Information reduced to writing in a panchnama constitutes a previous statement subject to cross-examination under Section 145.

The petitioners are accused in a trial for murder under Section 302 of the IPC (Sessions Case No. 47 of 2023).

During the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness No. 22 (Pethabhai Sakhara), an alleged eyewitness, the defense attempted to pose a question regarding a scene-of-offence panchnama (Exh. 35).

The panchnama recorded that the witness had told the Investigating Officer that a recovered jacket belonged to the deceased and that its cut marks were caused by an assault by unknown persons.

In his deposition (Exh. 152), the witness identified the jacket but remained silent on the cause of the cut marks.

The Prosecution objected to the question on the ground that a panchnama is not a statement under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. and cannot be used for contradiction.

The Sessions Court upheld this objection on June 30, 2026, disallowing the question.

1. Whether the information provided by a witness and recorded in a scene-of-offence panchnama constitutes a "previous statement in writing" for the purpose of cross-examination and contradiction under the Evidence Act.

2. Whether the trial court erred in disallowing the defense from pointing out contradictions between the witness's oral testimony and the contents of the panchnama.

Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be cross-examined regarding previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to matters in question, provided his attention is called to the parts used for contradiction.

Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding statements made to the police during investigations.

The Court observed that the witness (P.W. 22) was present during the drawing of the panchnama and had provided specific information to the police regarding the ownership and condition of the deceased's jacket.

The Court reasoned that any information provided by a witness to the police that is "reduced into writing"—as it was in the panchnama—qualifies as a "previous statement" under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

The defense is entitled to use such writing to contradict the witness if his oral testimony deviates from those recorded facts.

The High Court rejected the Sessions Court's reasoning that the question was inadmissible because the panchnama was not a Section 162 statement or because the defense had failed to question the Panch witnesses on the matter; such factors go to the weight of evidence at the end of the trial, not the initial right to cross-examine.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated June 30, 2026. Rule was made absolute.