Case Studies On Section 164 Crpc Statements
1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Gurmit Singh was accused of murder. The trial relied heavily on Section 164 CrPC statements of witnesses recorded by a magistrate during investigation.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC are admissible as evidence but do not replace oral testimony.
Magistrates must ensure statements are voluntary and no inducement, threat, or coercion is used.
Such statements carry high evidentiary value if corroborated.
Significance:
Established voluntariness and magistrate oversight as essential for Section 164 statements.
Confirmed that corroboration is necessary for conviction based solely on recorded statements.
2. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013) – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The case primarily dealt with FIR registration, but Section 164 statements were central for recording witness complaints in dowry harassment and sexual assault cases.
Judgment:
Court emphasized mandatory recording of statements under Section 164 CrPC in cases of serious offences like rape and harassment.
Ensured that statements are recorded promptly and without pressure to preserve reliability.
Significance:
Strengthened procedural safeguards for victim statements.
Reinforced that Section 164 CrPC statements are crucial for protecting victims in sensitive cases.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Prakash (2005) – Bombay High Court
Facts:
A woman accused her husband of domestic violence and attempted murder. The Section 164 statement was recorded by the Magistrate during investigation.
Judgment:
High Court held that Section 164 statements are presumed truthful unless rebutted.
Emphasized that credibility of statements recorded by Magistrate is generally higher than statements recorded by police.
Statements are especially important in cases where the victim fears retaliation.
Significance:
Demonstrated that Section 164 statements can substantiate victim testimony in court.
Reinforced magistrate-recorded statements as safeguards against police coercion.
4. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
In a murder case, the prosecution relied on confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The defense argued that the statement was coerced.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that confession recorded by a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC has high evidentiary value, but must be voluntary.
Courts should examine circumstances of recording to ensure no pressure or inducement.
Conviction can be based on Section 164 confession if corroborated by independent evidence.
Significance:
Clarified the distinction between Section 164 statements and police-recorded confessions.
Reinforced strict voluntariness requirement.
5. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999) – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
During the assassination case of Rajiv Gandhi, several accused gave confessions under Section 164 CrPC. Issues arose regarding whether the confessions could be admitted against co-accused.
Judgment:
Court held that Section 164 confessions are admissible against the person making the confession, but not against co-accused unless corroborated.
Statements recorded by magistrates carry procedural safeguards absent in police confessions.
Significance:
Reinforced scope and limitations of Section 164 confessions.
Highlighted procedural safeguards in terrorism-related and high-profile cases.
6. State of Karnataka v. Manjunath (2010) – Karnataka High Court
Facts:
A victim of sexual assault recorded a Section 164 statement after delayed reporting of the incident.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that even delayed statements under Section 164 are admissible, provided the magistrate ensures voluntariness.
Section 164 statements are especially critical in crimes against women and children, where direct testimony may be influenced by fear or trauma.
Significance:
Highlighted importance of magistrate-recorded statements in protecting vulnerable witnesses.
Section 164 statements can substantiate delayed FIRs.
7. Key Judicial Principles from Section 164 CrPC Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Representative Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness | Statements must be free from inducement, threat, or coercion | Gurmit Singh (1996), Kashi Ram (2006) |
| Evidentiary Value | Statements are admissible but generally require corroboration | Gurmit Singh (1996), Nalini (1999) |
| Confessions vs. Witness Statements | Confessions under 164 CrPC are high value; cannot be used against co-accused without corroboration | Nalini (1999) |
| Protection for Victims | Statements protect witnesses from police influence and retaliation | Lalita Kumari (2013), Prakash (2005) |
| Delayed Statements | Delay does not invalidate 164 statements if voluntariness is ensured | Manjunath (2010) |
Conclusion
Section 164 CrPC statements are vital procedural tools in criminal investigations, providing magistrate-recorded evidence.
Voluntariness is paramount; coercion or inducement can render statements inadmissible.
Confessions carry high weight but require corroboration, especially in serious offences like murder or terrorism.
Victim statements under Section 164 are crucial in sexual assault, dowry, and domestic violence cases, protecting witnesses from police or accused influence.
Courts consistently hold that Section 164 statements supplement but do not replace oral evidence, ensuring fair trial standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments