( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 952 OF 2009 Shri Ramdas Gynuji Narwade, R/o Civil Surgeon’s Quarter, Civil Hospital, Buldhana PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate holding for Mr. A.R. Salve, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.R. Shaikh, APP for the respondent/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th October, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. ( 2 ) 2. The petitioner is original accused against whom sessions trial case No. 2143/2006 is pending for trial. The petitioner filed an application vide Exh-39 whereby he submitted that the statement recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code was wrongly exhibited vide Exhibit-31 and it could not be admitted in evidence in as much as it cannot be read as a statement in view of the embargo put vide section 162, itself, but it was wrongly given exhibit number. He also submitted that his supplementary statement and that of the complainant were wrongly exhibited. 3. Consequent upon hearing the learned counsel and on consideration of the relevant material, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that though a document is exhibited, yet, whether to read it in evidence or not can be decided at any stage during the trial. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the statement under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code was wrongly exhibited as Exhibit-31. He held that the said statement cannot be read in evidence and, therefore, he partly allowed the request of the ( 3 ) petitioner to ignore the same. Still, however, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that supplementary statement given by the accused/complainant was part and parcel of the complaint and, therefore, it can be read in evidence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, Exhibit-33 is not the same document which is supplementary statement of the complainant but it is wrongly quoted in the impugned order as Exhibit-33. The learned counsel makes a statement that such supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after 5/6 days of filing of the complaint. This fact is not in dispute. 5. The statement of the complainant before the police can be admitted in evidence only if it is governed by section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Otherwise it only becomes the statement recorded under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The additional or supplementary statement, which is recorded subsequently, is outside the purview of section 154 of ( 4 ) the Criminal Procedure Code. Needless to say, it is only a police statement which cannot be exhibited and admitted in evidence unless it can be treated as dying declaration or would come within ambit of section 27 of the Evidence Act. The use of police statement under section 162 is restricted during course of the trial for thealleged offence, only to the extent of contradiction as envisaged in section 145 of the Evidence Act and not for any other purpose. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought not to have held that the supplementary statement can be read in evidence. 6. For the aforestated reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order to the extent of rejection of the petitioner’s prayer for discarding the supplementary statement of the complainant or his own police statement, as the case may be, from consideration i.e. reading of the same as evidence, is allowed. It is made clear that the statement of the petitioner, unless it is part of the statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be considered if it is wrongly exhibited as Exhibit-33. If it is his police ( 5 ) statement and is not part of the F.I.R., then also, it may not be considered. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp952-09