During a police investigation, a witness communicates to the investigating officer that the witness…

BNSS section 181 bars use at trial of statements made to police during investigation, save for limited purposes such as contradiction. In Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v State of Bombay (1954) the Supreme Court held that a witness's communication of identification to the police is such a statement, distinct from the mental act of recognition, so the answer is "No; the statutory restriction on police-investigation statements applies to that communication". Accordingly "Yes, because every statement made during identification is substantively admissible", "Yes, because relevance to identity automatically overrides the police-statement restriction" and "It is conclusive evidence of identity whenever the officer records it" are wrong.