Pocso Act - Section 161 CrPC / Section 162(1) CrPC

571 votes

Under POCSO, a statement under Section 161 CrPC must be recorded only by the Investigating Officer. It is not required to be co-signed by an NGO worker, parent, or any other person. If an NGO worker has signed it, that signature has no legal effect, but it does not invalidate the statement. The statement remains a 161 CrPC statement, which is anyway not substantive evidence and is used only for contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Similarly, other witnesses cannot “co-sign” the 161 statement. Their signatures are not required and ideally should not appear on the document. This is a procedural irregularity, not an illegality that vitiates the entire investigation. Such irregularities do not make the 161 statements inadmissible, because 161 statements are not admissible in the first place except for contradiction. Courts generally look at whether prejudice was caused to the accused. If not, the trial is not affected. If the breach is serious or repeated, the IO may face departmental action for improper procedure, but it will not automatically result in the case being dismissed

Advocate Akash Chikate LawRato

568 votes

In POCSO cases, a statement u/s 161 CrPC is only recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is not required to be signed either by the victim, witnesses, or any NGO worker. If the IO takes signatures or allows an NGO worker to co-sign, it is technically improper, because 161 statements are not meant to be signed by anyone except the IO. However, this does not automatically make the statement inadmissible, because 161 statements are not substantive evidence— they are only used for contradiction u/s 145 Evidence Act. The court may warn or question the IO for procedural lapse, but the case will not collapse only on this ground.

Advocate Pankaj Bajaj LawRato