New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said all policemen are not bad and there is nothing in law which says that a statement made by a cop cannot be treated as an admissible evidence.

A bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and C K Prasad said statements of police personnel cannot be outrightly rejected but should be weighed on the facts of the case.

"There is no principle of law that a statement made in a court by a policeman has to be disbelieved. It may or may not be believed. It is not that all policemen will tell lies. There are good and bad people in all walks of life.
"There are good and bad police men as well. We cannot assume that every statement of a policeman is necessarily false," Justice Katju said writing the judgement.

The Apex Court made the remarks while dismissing the appeal of one C Ronald accused of circulating Rs 100 fake currency notes in Port Blair on November 26, 1997.

Though the trial court had acquitted Ronald of the charges, the Calcutta High Court had, on an appeal by the state, reversed the acquittal and convicted him for the offence. Aggrieved, he had challenged the conviction.

Senior counsel Shanti Bhushan, appearing for Ronald, said the accused was apparently framed by the policemen as he did not pay them the bribe money. He argued since the trial court had acquitted the accused, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the acquittal.

Rejecting the argument, the bench said " in this connection, we would like to say that a judgement of a court of law should not be read as a Euclid's theorem nor as a provision in a statute (vide Bharat Petroleum Corporation vs. N.R. Vairamani, AIR 2004)

"A perusal of Section 386(a) Cr.P.C. shows that no restrictions have been placed by the statute on the power of the Appellate Court to reverse an order of acquittal and convict the accused.
In the present case, there is nothing to show that the policemen were making false statements in the court.  They had no enmity with the accused, the bench said, while sustaining the conviction.