Case Law On Section 164 Crpc Statements
📌 Section 164 CrPC: Overview
Section 164 CrPC empowers a Magistrate to record the confession or statement of a person voluntarily, and such recorded statements are used as evidence during the trial.
It is usually applied for:
Recording confessions.
Recording statements of witnesses, especially victims or complainants, to avoid harassment and ensure the reliability of evidence.
The Magistrate ensures that the statement is made voluntarily and without coercion.
Such statements carry high evidentiary value but are not substantive proof on their own—they need to be corroborated by other evidence.
🏛️ Detailed Case Law Analysis on Section 164 CrPC Statements
1. Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1992 SC 604
Facts:
The accused was charged with murder.
The victim's dying declaration was recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
Supreme Court Holding:
The Court emphasized that statements under Section 164 must be voluntary and the Magistrate must satisfy himself of this before recording.
The Court held that dying declarations under Section 164 CrPC are admissible as evidence.
However, the probative value depends on the circumstances, such as the opportunity for the deceased to make a free and conscious statement.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that dying declarations and statements under Section 164 have special evidentiary value but must be corroborated.
The Magistrate's role is crucial to ensure voluntariness.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam, AIR 2003 SC 3052
Facts:
The accused challenged the recording of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164, alleging coercion.
Supreme Court Observations:
Held that the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC is presumptively true and voluntary unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
The Magistrate’s duty is to ensure the statement is recorded without coercion or undue influence.
The Court held that such statements can form the basis for conviction, even if the witness turns hostile later.
Importance:
This case clarified that statements under Section 164 have high evidentiary value and the trial court should examine the credibility and voluntariness rather than dismiss them outright.
Protects the victim from harassment and trauma by recording their statement in a safe environment.
3. Mohd. Zakir v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 682
Facts:
The accused argued that the statement recorded under Section 164 was not reliable because the Magistrate did not ask questions.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Held that the Magistrate recording the statement under Section 164 is not an inquisitorial authority.
The Magistrate’s duty is to ensure free and voluntary statement; it is not necessary to cross-examine or interrogate the witness.
The Court emphasized the importance of recording the statement verbatim and verifying voluntariness.
Significance:
Clarified the role of the Magistrate during recording under Section 164.
The absence of cross-examination at this stage does not affect the evidentiary value of the statement.
4. K. Narayana Swamy v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1953 SC 107
Facts:
The accused contended that the statement recorded under Section 164 was not corroborated and thus should not be relied upon.
Supreme Court Holding:
Held that statements under Section 164 CrPC are not substantive evidence by themselves but can be used to corroborate evidence.
However, if the statement is voluntary and consistent with other evidence, it can be the basis for conviction.
The statement recorded by the Magistrate has greater reliability than statements recorded by the police because it is recorded in a judicial setting.
Key Takeaway:
Section 164 statements hold significant evidentiary weight and act as a precaution against false accusations or coercion.
5. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393
Facts:
The case involved the recording of the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC in a rape case.
Supreme Court Observations:
Emphasized that the Magistrate must ensure the statement is voluntary.
Such statements are important evidence and should be recorded before the trial.
The Court stated that the accused has the right to cross-examine the witness on the basis of the Section 164 statement during the trial.
Importance:
This judgment emphasizes the protective role of Section 164 statements in sexual offence cases.
Ensures early recording of testimony to prevent manipulation or trauma.
6. State of Karnataka v. Appanna, AIR 1987 SC 1469
Facts:
The accused argued that the Section 164 statement was not recorded properly and the Magistrate failed to ensure voluntariness.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Stated that the Magistrate has a solemn duty to satisfy himself that the statement is voluntary.
The Court can examine the record of Section 164 to see if the procedure was followed.
If the Magistrate records the statement without ensuring voluntariness, the statement can be rejected.
Significance:
Reinforces the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 164.
Protects the accused and witnesses from misuse of the law.
⚖️ Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness is mandatory | The Magistrate must ensure the statement is made without coercion. | Bhajan Singh, Appanna |
| Evidentiary value | Section 164 statements can be used as evidence, especially if corroborated. | Rajesh Gautam, K. Narayana Swamy |
| Magistrate's role | Magistrate is not inquisitorial but must record the statement verbatim and ensure voluntariness. | Mohd. Zakir |
| Protection of witnesses | Statements recorded under Section 164 protect witnesses from repeated trauma and harassment during trial. | Gurmit Singh |
| Cross-examination rights | Accused can cross-examine witnesses based on these statements during trial. | Gurmit Singh |
📌 Additional Notes
Section 164 statements are often recorded in rape and other serious criminal cases to protect victims.
These statements are recorded in the presence of the accused (usually) to ensure fairness.
The court always looks at the entire circumstances to judge the credibility of such statements.
RELATED Blog
0 comments