22. The fact that the PW1 to PW4 had been confronted with their statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which were not in sync with their evidence recorded before the learned Trial Court, regarding the respondent No.2 having come to the house of the deceased and taking her out for a walk on the said night shows that they are unreliable witnesses. In the case of V.K. Mishra & Anr. –vs- State of Uttarakhand & Anr. , reported in (2015) 9 SCC 588, the Apex Court has held that a witness should be confronted with his previous statement made before the Police under Section 161 Cr.PC, to contradict his statement at the time of recording of his evidence, to discredit the witness. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also provides that a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. The Apex Court in V.K. Mishra (supra) further held that thereafter, when the Investigating Officer is examined in the Court, his admission should be drawn to the passage marked for the purpose of contradictions. In the case in hand, PW1 to PW-4 have been confronted with their statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the Investigating Officer has also been examined in
