Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral)

A criminal complaint case was filed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar on 23.12.2006 against Ramesh Singh Bisht, who was a juvenile in conflict with law, before the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar. Said complaint was filed under Sections 191 and 193 of IPC.

2. The reason for filing the complaint against the juvenile in conflict with law was that he gave contrary statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and before the trial court.

3. Section 191 of IPC deals with ‘giving false evidence’ and Section 193 of IPC provides for punishment for false evidence. The opening sentence of Section 191 of IPC is – ‘Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth…………..’. A perusal of statement of Ramesh Singh Bisht under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. will indicate that when the same was recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, oath was not administered to the deponent. Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate, who records statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., to administer oath to the person whose statement is about to be recorded. Section 191 of IPC is, therefore, not attracted, and, hence, there is no question of application of Section 193 of IPC in the present case.

4. Needless to say that the statement of witness(es) before the Investigating Officer or under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used as evidence. It may be used, with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution to contradict the witness concerned in the manner provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The impugned order dated 23.12.2006, therefore, cannot sustain.

5. Criminal appeal filed on behalf of Ramesh Singh Bisht, juvenile in conflict with law, is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.12.2006 is set aside and, as a consequence thereof, the complaint filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar is also quashed.