Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 180
Examination of witnesses by police
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records: Provided that statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means: Provided further that the statement of a woman against whom an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79 or section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer.
Why this exists
This provision continues the long-standing power police have had (originally under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and later 1973) to gather information from witnesses during investigation without needing a magistrate's order at every step. The self-incrimination exception reflects the constitutional protection under Article 20(3) against being forced to be a witness against oneself. The audio-video recording option and the requirement of a woman officer for recording statements of women victims in sexual offence cases were added to modernize evidence-gathering and to make the process less intimidating and more sensitive for vulnerable witnesses, building on reforms introduced after the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case and the Nirbhaya-related 2013 amendments to the CrPC.
How courts read it
Under the identical predecessor provision (Section 161 CrPC), courts have held that statements recorded by police during investigation are not substantive evidence and cannot be used as direct proof of facts; they can only be used to contradict a witness at trial under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, as clarified in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. Courts have also read the 'truly answer' obligation alongside the constitutional right against self-incrimination — in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, the Supreme Court held that a person can refuse to answer questions that may expose them to criminal liability, reinforcing the protection built into sub-section (2). These interpretive principles are expected to continue to apply to Section 180 BNSS since its text mirrors the earlier provision.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: A statement given to police under this section is direct evidence that can convict someone.
Fact: Courts have held that such statements are not substantive evidence; they are mainly used to check for contradictions if the witness later says something different in court. - Myth: A witness must answer every question the police ask, no matter what.
Fact: Sub-section (2) specifically allows a person to refuse to answer questions that would expose them to a criminal charge, penalty, or forfeiture. - Myth: Police statements always have to be handwritten on paper.
Fact: The section now allows statements to be recorded through audio-video electronic means as well.