2025 Supreme(Gau) 2343

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, JJ.
Md. Nasir Ali @ Nasiruddin Ahmed, S/o. Md. Rafik Ali – Petitioner 
Versus 
The State of Assam, Rep. By The P.P., Assam And Anr. – Respondents
Crl. A. No.419 of 2019
Decided On : 23-04-2025

A statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not substantive evidence and serves only to corroborate or contradict testimony. Furthermore, the prosecution must independently prove the victim's age, and delayed disclosures cannot be admitted as substantive evidence under the doctrine of res gestae.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 164 - Statements recorded under this provision are not substantive pieces of evidence and can only be utilized for corroboration or contradiction of the witness - The trial court erred in treating such a statement as substantive evidence to establish guilt. (Paragraphs 45, 46)

(B) Evidence, 1872 - Section 32 - Statements made by a deceased person are only admissible as substantive evidence if they relate to the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death - In the absence of such nexus, extra-judicial statements remain inadmissible as substantive proof. (Paragraphs 50, 51)

(C) Evidence, 1872 - Section 6 - Res Gestae - For an out-of-court statement to be admissible as part of the same transaction, it must be near-contemporaneous with the occurrence - A statement made to a parent one day after the incident fails the test of spontaneity. (Paragraphs 38, 42)

(D) Special Protection Laws - Age determination - The burden of proving the age of the victim remains exclusively on the prosecution, and reliance on unsubstantiated claims without birth registries or radiological verification is insufficient to sustain a conviction. (Paragraph 52)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for sexual assault against a minor based on a statement recorded by a judicial officer and testimony provided by relatives. The victim, who was since deceased, had allegedly disclosed the occurrence to her parent at a clinical facility one day after the event. The prosecution relied upon these statements and medical observations, while the defense argued that all evidence was hearsay and that the age of the victim had not been conclusively established, rendering the conviction legally flawed.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the statement recorded by the magistrate could not be treated as substantive evidence under the applicable evidentiary norms. It further observed that the disclosure made to the parent was not part of the same transaction, failing the test of res gestae. Moreover, the prosecution failed to provide documentary proof to establish the victim's age, and the available medical evidence was insufficient to confirm the status of the victim at the time of the occurrence.

Issues: Whether an out-of-court statement recorded by a magistrate serves as substantive evidence, and whether the prosecution successfully met the burden of proof regarding the victim's age and the admissibility of the disclosure under the doctrine of res gestae.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement recorded under the jurisdictional powers of the magistrate regarding a criminal incident does not qualify as substantive evidence under the evidence law. In the absence of corroborating substantive facts and failed proof regarding the victim's age, the prosecution fails to establish a chain of circumstances pointing toward guilt, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted on benefit of doubt.