B. C. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) ). * * * * ( 2 ) ). In the instant case, learned defence Advocate while cross-examining the witnesses have put various questions with a view to bring out either contradictions or omissions. Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been added with an Explanation, in view of the reported decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Tahsildar Singh v. State of U. P. , reported in AIR 1959 SC 1012 , which reads as under : explanation 1- An omission to state a fact or circumstances in the statements referred to in sub-sec. (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact. ( 3 ) ). The procedure has been indicated in the aforesaid decision as to how the same is to be proved. Learned defence Counsel Mr. Shah as well as learned additional Public Prosecutor, after scanning the questions put in the cross examination with regard to omissions or contradictions with the police statement, submitted that in the instant case all the three, i. e. , learned Advocate, Public prosecutor and the learned Sessions Judge, have not discharged their functions properly. Some omissions are put in the cross-examination, though witnesses have stated in their statement before the police and there is in fact no omission yet questions are put to a witness as if he has not stated and even the investigating officer answered in the manner so as to suggest that, that is an omission. Neither the Public prosecutor nor the Presiding Officer took any care. Even Police Officer surprisingly answered without reading the same. To the complainant, in para 4, a question was put that he has not stated before the police that "at that time as stones were being thrown on our house by Vallabh Savaji, we went to scold him". The witness has stated this before the police and yet learned Judge has permitted this question. To the complainant, in para 4, a question was put that he has not stated before the police that "at that time as stones were being thrown on our house by Vallabh Savaji, we went to scold him". The witness has stated this before the police and yet learned Judge has permitted this question. The complaint which was recorded soon after the incident wherein he has not described the incident in detail, but in his further statement, witness has in fact stated and with regard to those statements, even questions are put to the effect that he has not stated in the complaint but neither the learned Judge nor the learned Public Prosecutor has taken care to see that whether such statement is made in the statement or not. This should have been noted in the evidence. The manner of narrating the incident is slightly different in the statement before the police than the manner in which the incident is narrated before the Court below. But, if both the statements are read together, there is no contradiction or omission. Only manner of narrating is different or there is change in the words but having the same meaning. Though weapons have been referred to with particular accused, a question is put to witness. To some witnesses, questions are put that they have not referred to in their police statement that injury was not caused on particular part of the body though that is stated. Learned Counsel mr. Shah fairly stated that in such a situation where the witnesses have described the weapons but not part of the body where the blow was inflicted, then in that case what is exactly omitted should have been highlighted. At places we find that merely because different words are used though it carries the same meaning, questions with intention to bring out omissions or contradictions are permitted by the learned Sessions Judge and Public Prosecutor has also not bothered to see that real affairs as it appears is placed on record. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah noted down with regard to all contradictions and omissions and fairly stated that really speaking, most of the contradictions and omissions are neither contradictions nor omissions, but merely language used in the police statement and before the Court is different but the meaning thereof is the same. This has happened with respect to almost all the witnesses. Shah noted down with regard to all contradictions and omissions and fairly stated that really speaking, most of the contradictions and omissions are neither contradictions nor omissions, but merely language used in the police statement and before the Court is different but the meaning thereof is the same. This has happened with respect to almost all the witnesses. It is the duty of the learned Sessions Judge to compare and find out contradictions or omissions. It is equally the duty of the Public Prosecutor in charge of conducting the matter to point out to the learned Sessions Judge that this is not an omission or contradiction. Only if the learned Sessions Judge finds that the statement of the witness in the Court materially defers from that previously made, then it is his duty to examine as to the discrepancy. ( 4 ) ). In order to see whether there is a contradiction by omission, it is necessary to find out whether two statements cannot stand together. It is also necessary to see whether a statement which the witness has made in the witness box should have been made by him while reporting the matter soon after the incident. If the two statements made by the witnesses cannot stand together and the statement in the court is such that the witness would necessarily have made at the time of his earlier statement, then alone omission thereof can be considered to be a contradiction. It is also necessary that before using any prior statement of a witness to contradict him, attention of the witness should be drawn to the relevant portion and he should be given an opportunity of explaining any apparent discrepancy. This is more so in the case of contradiction by omission. (See Dasu v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 cri. LJ 1933) ( 5 ) ). In a reported decision of this Court in the case of N. K. Tandel v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1986 Cri. LJ 457, this Court has made some observations in paragraph 10 which reads as under :-"before we part with this case we would like to observe that the learned special judge allowed certain questions in cross-examination regarding contradictions with police statements. In fact what we have found throughout is that at all crucial points in cross-examination loose ends which could never unite were kept so that the arguments could be advanced. In fact what we have found throughout is that at all crucial points in cross-examination loose ends which could never unite were kept so that the arguments could be advanced. But on those arguments no conclusions could ever be reached. The contradiction was put in such a way that in fact the real contradiction was never known, whether it amounted to contradiction or not that also was never seen. It is required to be stated that the contradiction is to be proved in the manner laid down by Sec. 162 of the Criminal P. C. Every omission does not amount to contradiction unless that omission vitally touches the very factum which is required to be proved by the prosecution. Say in a murder trial in the complaint the name of the accused is not stated at all and it is stated for the first time in Court. It is a real contradiction though an omission. But if the witness states that he saw a particular gentleman at 3-30 in the evening, to ask him in cross-examination that he did not state that he saw a particular person at 3-30 p. m. and in the police statement if he states that he saw him in the afternoon, what is not mentioned is only 3-30 p. m. It is an omission of non-consequential nature. If the contradiction is taken down verbatim in the manner in which the question is asked an impression might be created that he did not even say that he saw him in the evening or in the afternoon. But in fact he had stated that he had seen the person in the evening or in the afternoon. What was not stated was only 3-30 p. m. Now that, therefore, even such and omission is required to be brought on record. It is to be brought in such a way that it becomes clear as to what exactly the contradiction is otherwise it would appear that nothing was stated in the police statement. It is also necessary, therefore, that if by bringing out a contradiction that the first statement which is given in the Court is totally absurd having regard to the police statement, a person is required to be given a chance of explaining as to what he wanted to say or what was his explanation in regard to the contradiction. It is also necessary, therefore, that if by bringing out a contradiction that the first statement which is given in the Court is totally absurd having regard to the police statement, a person is required to be given a chance of explaining as to what he wanted to say or what was his explanation in regard to the contradiction. Now that, therefore, another thing which is required to be noted is that Sec. 162 of the criminal P. C. requires that the contradiction is to be asked in the manner laid down by Sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now that, therefore, if the principles enunciated in these two cases were borne in mind by the learned Special Judge so many questions which were asked in crossexamination could not have been asked or some of them could have been asked in a different way. It is, therefore, necessary that in every case where the witness is to be contradicted, the Judge should bear in mind the provisions contained in sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and Sec. 162 of the Criminal P. C. and the interpretation made of those sections in the two rulings which we have referred above. This would avoid unnecessary questions and it will bring about the result which would be both in the interest of the prosecution and the defence and, therefore, in the interest of justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 6 ) ). In the instant case, whether the lady came out from the kitchen or from the house in the della makes no difference because of the situation of the kitchen. Hussien PW. 8 in his statement has stated that lunch was served by Laduben and not by Parvati but before the Court he has stated that Parvati was also present. Here, there is omission with regard to Parvati. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel stated that yet a question is put to the effect that witness has not stated before the police that laduben and Parvatiben served the meals and at that time Parvatiben was also present. Here, there is omission with regard to Parvati. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel stated that yet a question is put to the effect that witness has not stated before the police that laduben and Parvatiben served the meals and at that time Parvatiben was also present. A question is also put that he has not stated before the police that in the village Sondabhai met and both came to the house at about 12-00 noon and thereafter sondabhai asked him to lunch together and he and Sondabhai lunched together. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned Counsel Mr. Shah stated that in the police statement there is a reference that they met at 12-00 noon and were returning together and at that time Sondabhai stated that they will dine together. Now if these two statements are read together there is no contradiction or omission. Fact remains that they met in the village and Sondabhai invited him for lunch. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case they met at place "a" or "b" has no significance. Invitation extended is also stated and the presence of this witness at the house is also proved. Whether Sondabhai asked him to get up or he got up after hearing the shouts or whether they both went together out of the house or whether Sondabhai first went and thereafter Hussienbhai went out, all these has no relevance. Therefore, can it be said that after hearing the hubbubs he went out cannot be accepted because in the police statement he has stated that Sondabhai raised voice calling him and thereafter he went out ? The meaning conveyed is the same and the only difference is in the use of language. We find that several such questions are put to all these witnesses but we do not discuss all such questions in detail. Suffice it to say that the contradictions are not of such a nature that would destroy the earlier statements. What is required to be seen is that whether the meaning conveyed by the later statement is similar to the earlier statement or not. The trial Court ought to have kept it in mind. Suffice it to say that the contradictions are not of such a nature that would destroy the earlier statements. What is required to be seen is that whether the meaning conveyed by the later statement is similar to the earlier statement or not. The trial Court ought to have kept it in mind. Therefore, while permitting questions relating to omissions, care should be taken to see that it is a real omission and if it is a case of omission of word, the same should be highlighted and it is the duty of the presiding officer to see that contradiction or omission is real in sense. It seems in the instant case the trial Judge has failed in discharging his duties while recording evidence. At the same time, it becomes obligatory for the Public Prosecutor also to see that only real contradiction is brought on record or omission or contradiction sought to be brought on record should have been requested by him to be underlined in the evidence so that while reading the evidence, it may not appear that the witness has denied the entire version or that for the first time before the Court, case is put up. It seems that in the instant case, learned Public Prosecutor has failed to discharge his duties. If the settled principles laid down in the aforementioned two judgments were borne in mind, so many questions which are asked in the cross-examination could not have been asked or some of them could have been asked in a different way. It is, therefore, necessary that in every case where a witness is to be contradicted, the trial Judge should bear in mind that the contradictions are to be brought in the way prescribed in Sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. .