Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru S/O Late Gurumurthy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking a strange prayer of expunging/redacting a portion of the deposition of PW-1 recorded on 01-07-2024 in Special Case (POCSO) No.181 of 2022 pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.
2. Facts in brief, necessary for introduction to the case are:
A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.387 of 2022 for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 376(3), 149 of the IPC and under Sections 17, 5(L), and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short). On completion of investigation the police file a charge sheet on 25-10- 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(DA), 376(3), 201, 202, 506 r/w 34 and 37 of the IPC, Sections 17, 5(L), and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short), Sections 3(f) and 7 of the Religious Institution Prevention of Misuse Act, 1988, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. On 31-05-2024 the concerned Court frames charges in accordance with the order passed by this C
Statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and can only be used for contradiction or corroboration during cross-examination.
The admissibility of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as evidence and the conduct of the petitioner's counsel were central legal points established in the judgment.
The evidentiary value of a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is limited and is used as an aid during trial.
The use of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as evidence is limited to corroboration or contradiction, and in the absence of substantial evidence, such statements cannot sustain a convict....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the importance of confronting witnesses with their previous statements to ensure a fair trial, as mandated by Section 145 of the Evidence Act a....
The court ruled that a witness cannot be recalled to confront them with subsequent statements for impeachment, as only previous statements are permissible under the Evidence Act.
Evidence reliance on Section 164 CrPC statements is inadequate when witnesses become hostile, illustrating the need for corroboration and admissibility standards in criminal proceedings.
The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in recording witness statements and ensuring the accused's right to explain incriminating evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
