AI Overview...

Statements under CrPC 164 recorded multiple times - Victims can have their statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC multiple times during investigation and trial. These statements serve different purposes: initial recording by magistrates for investigation, and subsequent statements in court for evidence. The same statement can be re-recorded if circumstances change or additional details emerge. Lawmsangkima S/o Samuela vs State of Mizoram - Gauhati, Shailendra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. - Allahabad, Sanjay Kumar VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand, Habibar Rahman S/o Abdul Hoque VS State of Assam - Gauhati, Usman @ Sameer VS State Of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand, Chandra Mouli VS State of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - Kerala
Purpose and admissibility - Statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC are used for corroboration, contradiction, and as substantive evidence, but they are not substantive evidence themselves unless proven to be voluntary and reliable. Statements under Section 164 can be used to support or challenge other testimonies, and their consistency or inconsistency with court statements is scrutinized. XXX VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh, Chandra Mouli VS State of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - Kerala, Sanjay Kumar VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand
Recording multiple statements and their implications - Recording a victim's statement multiple times is permissible, but discrepancies between statements (e.g., initial denial of rape and later admission) can raise doubts about credibility. Courts examine the context, voluntariness, and whether statements were made under duress or pressure. Inconsistent statements can impact the reliability of the evidence but do not automatically invalidate the process. Lawmsangkima S/o Samuela vs State of Mizoram - Gauhati, Ajeet Singh Constable VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, Usman @ Sameer VS State Of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand, Habibar Rahman S/o Abdul Hoque VS State of Assam - Gauhati
Legal considerations - The right to access copies of statements under Section 164 CrPC is recognized, and such statements can be used for corroboration or contradiction. However, statements made under duress or pressure may be challenged, and courts assess their authenticity carefully. The recording of multiple statements is lawful, provided it is done properly and the victim's rights are protected. Anish Kumar Bharti VS State of Uttarakhand - Crimes, Chandra Mouli VS State of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - Kerala

Analysis and Conclusion:Statements under CrPC 164 can be recorded multiple times for different procedural reasons, and this is legally permissible. Their main purpose is to assist in establishing facts, corroborate, or challenge other evidence. While multiple recordings are allowed, inconsistencies between statements and court testimonies can affect credibility, especially if made under pressure or duress. Courts analyze the circumstances of each recording to determine reliability. Victims' statements under Section 164 are crucial but must be scrutinized for voluntariness and consistency, and victims are entitled to access copies of these statements.

Can Section 164 CrPC Statements Be Recorded Twice?

In sensitive cases involving victims of sexual offences, the recording of statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) plays a pivotal role. These statements help preserve the victim's account early in the investigation, often under the supervision of a magistrate. But what happens when circumstances demand a second recording? Can a rape victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC be recorded twice? This question raises important guidelines regarding procedural safeguards, evidentiary value, and judicial scrutiny.

This article delves into the legal framework, permissibility of multiple recordings, case examples, and practical recommendations. While this provides general insights based on precedents, it is not a substitute for professional legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.

Legal Framework of Section 164 CrPC

Section 164 of the CrPC empowers magistrates to record statements and confessions during investigations, particularly crucial in sexual offence cases to protect vulnerable victims. MANISHA SAHU VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad (2018) These statements are typically recorded soon after the incident to capture fresh details, often preferring a lady magistrate for sensitivity. Murugan VS State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari - Madras (2023)

The provision ensures statements are voluntary and free from coercion, serving as corroborative evidence rather than standalone proof. However, the code does not explicitly prohibit multiple recordings, opening the door to nuanced judicial interpretations. From other legal analyses, statements under Section 164 CrPC can be recorded multiple times during investigation and trial for varying purposes, such as initial documentation or when new details emerge. Lawmsangkima S/o Samuela vs State of Mizoram - Gauhati Shailendra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. - Allahabad

Permissibility of Multiple Statements

The law does not bar recording a victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC more than once. However, courts emphasize that the second statement must not contradict or undermine the first, as this could compromise evidence integrity. MANISHA SAHU VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad (2018)

When recording a second statement, magistrates must exercise due diligence:- Ensure the victim understands the implications.- Confront them with the previous statement to uphold sanctity. MANISHA SAHU VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad (2018)

Additional sources affirm this: Victims' statements can be re-recorded if circumstances change or additional details surface, serving purposes like corroboration or addressing inconsistencies. Lawmsangkima S/o Samuela vs State of Mizoram - Gauhati Sanjay Kumar VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand Habibar Rahman S/o Abdul Hoque VS State of Assam - Gauhati

Purpose and Admissibility: These statements corroborate or contradict other testimonies but are not substantive evidence unless proven voluntary and reliable. Courts scrutinize consistency with court statements. XXX VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh Chandra Mouli VS State of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - Kerala

In one document: Perusal of the record reveals that victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has implicated the applicant for causing rape upon her. Aditya Kumar Singh VS State of U. P - 2022 Supreme(All) 156 - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 156 This highlights how multiple statements (under 161 and 164) are commonly used together.

Discrepancies, such as initial denials later contradicted, may raise credibility doubts but do not automatically invalidate proceedings if voluntariness is established. Courts examine context, duress, or pressure. Lawmsangkima S/o Samuela vs State of Mizoram - Gauhati Ajeet Singh Constable VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (2022)

Another example: The statement of the victim has already been recorded under Sections 161 & 164 CrPC. Tapshirul Ali VS State Of Assam - 2020 Supreme(Gau) 213 - 2020 0 Supreme(Gau) 213 This shows routine multiple recordings without issue when core facts align.

Case Examples and Judicial Precedents

Judicial rulings provide clarity:1. In a case, a victim's second statement introduced serious allegations absent in the first, suggesting narrative enhancement that weakened prosecution. Ajeet Singh Constable VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (2022)2. Discrepancies between Sections 161 and 164 statements were deemed inconsequential if core facts remained unchanged. State vs Bittu Mandal - Delhi (2018)3. Courts stress victim rights, preferring lady magistrates. Murugan VS State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari - Madras (2023)

Further precedents: The victim proved her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. USMAN ALIAS SAMIR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand And in another, the victim's statement under 164 specifically implicated the accused. Aditya Kumar Singh VS State of U. P - 2022 Supreme(All) 156 - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 156

From broader analysis, inconsistent statements (e.g., initial rape denial) impact reliability but are assessed holistically. Usman @ Sameer VS State Of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand Habibar Rahman S/o Abdul Hoque VS State of Assam - Gauhati Victims have rights to copies of statements for access and challenge if under duress. Anish Kumar Bharti VS State of Uttarakhand - Crimes

In Sessions Case No. 115(S-C)/2012: The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC as well as the statements of the other witnesses were also recorded u/s 161 of CrPC. Gautam Goyari, Son of late Deepak Kr. Gurung VS State of Assam - 2018 Supreme(Gau) 785 - 2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 785 This underscores standard practice.

Implications of Recording Multiple Statements

While permissible, multiple recordings carry risks:- Credibility Challenges: Inconsistencies can be exploited in cross-examination.- Voluntariness Scrutiny: Courts probe for influence or pressure. Chandra Mouli VS State of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - Kerala- Evidentiary Role: Used for support or contradiction, not primary proof. Sanjay Kumar VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand

Legal practitioners must justify second recordings and protect victims from undue influence. Detailed records and victim briefing are essential.

Recommendations for Legal Practitioners and Stakeholders

To navigate these guidelines:- Justify Necessity: Record second statements only when warranted, avoiding contradictions. MANISHA SAHU VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad (2018)- Ensure Sensitivity: Use lady magistrates; inform victims fully.- Document Thoroughly: Maintain records, confront prior statements.- Advocate Rights: Provide statement copies; challenge coerced ones. Anish Kumar Bharti VS State of Uttarakhand - Crimes

For victims or families, understanding these processes empowers participation without fear.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Statements under Section 164 CrPC can generally be recorded more than once in sexual offence cases, provided they align without negation and follow safeguards. This upholds judicial integrity while protecting victims. Key takeaways:- Multiple recordings are lawful but demand caution against discrepancies. MANISHA SAHU VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad (2018)Lawmsangkima S/o Samuela vs State of Mizoram - Gauhati- Courts prioritize voluntariness and consistency. Ajeet Singh Constable VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (2022)- Practitioners: Prioritize diligence to preserve testimony value.

References: MANISHA SAHU VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad (2018)Ajeet Singh Constable VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (2022)State vs Bittu Mandal - Delhi (2018)Murugan VS State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari - Madras (2023)Lawmsangkima S/o Samuela vs State of Mizoram - Gauhati Shailendra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. - Allahabad Sanjay Kumar VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand Habibar Rahman S/o Abdul Hoque VS State of Assam - Gauhati Usman @ Sameer VS State Of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand Chandra Mouli VS State of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - Kerala XXX VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh Anish Kumar Bharti VS State of Uttarakhand - Crimes USMAN ALIAS SAMIR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand Aditya Kumar Singh VS State of U. P - 2022 Supreme(All) 156 - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 156 Tapshirul Ali VS State Of Assam - 2020 Supreme(Gau) 213 - 2020 0 Supreme(Gau) 213 Gautam Goyari, Son of late Deepak Kr. Gurung VS State of Assam - 2018 Supreme(Gau) 785 - 2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 785

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may vary; seek expert counsel.

#CrPC164, #VictimStatements, #SexualOffenceLaw

XXX VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 474

Statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC :- 14. Now, we shall consider the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of CrPC vide Ex. ... He would further submit that the Special Judge has also erred in relying upon the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of CrPC vide ....

Habibar Rahman S/o Abdul Hoque VS State of Assam - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 482

The IO went to the place of occurrence (PO, in short), prepared the sketch map and recorded the statements of the witnesses and forwarded the victim to the Magistrate, who recorded her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short). ... Her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is not similar to her depositi....

Usman @ Sameer VS State Of Uttarakhand - 2021 Supreme(UK) 152

But, for the reasons known best to the arresting officer he chose to get recorded the statements of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M. ... I adduced wrong statements before the police and the S.D.M. under duress. My statements were recoded in the Court of Magistrate. The victim proved her statements recor....

USMAN ALIAS SAMIR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

statements of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. ... The victim proved her statements recorded under Section 164 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated 11.03.2016 where her statements were recorded under Section 164

Chandra Mouli VS State of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 471

I have no doubt that the petitioner is entitled to certifiedcopies of the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under Section 207 Cr.P.C. read with Section 31 of the POCSO Act. ... The Special Judge is therefore directed to issue certified copies of the statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C#HL_EN....

Anish Kumar Bharti VS State of Uttarakhand

brought, and what he must disclose in his statements under Section 164 CrPC.” ... Statements under Section 161 CrPC can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and statements under Section 164 CrPC can be used for both corroboration and contradiction. ... It may be gathered from the statements of the victim #HL....

Tejbir Gulati VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(All) 1504

17. Lastly, the lower court while passing the order dated 05.02.2019 has not considered and discussed the evidentiary value of medical as placed on record. Thus on the aforesaid grounds wherein detailed discussion on every issue has been done by the revisional court there is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned passed by revisional court dated 20.02.2021 as the detailed reasons for remanding back the matter on issues which have not been discussed by the court below have been given....

Aditya Kumar Singh VS State of U. P - 2022 Supreme(All) 156

In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the concerned magistrate, she has specifically stated that applicant was known to her. 8. Perusal of the record reveals that victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has implicated the applicant for causing rape upon her.

Tapshirul Ali VS State Of Assam - 2020 Supreme(Gau) 213

3. The statement of the victim has already been recorded under Sections 161 & 164 CrPC . As per the statement recorded, the entire allegation goes against the accused Tapshirul Ali for alleged commission of rape and the present two accused persons being father and cousin of the accused Tapshirul, rebuked her for such affairs.

Gautam Goyari, Son of late Deepak Kr. Gurung VS State of Assam - 2018 Supreme(Gau) 785

4. During the course of investigation, the victim girl was medically examined by the doctor. The Police on completion of investigation filed charge-sheet in the against the accused, Gautam Gayari under Section 376/511 of vide Sessions Case No. 115(S-C)/2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.259/2012. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC as well as the statements of the other witnesses were also recorded u/s 161 of CrPC.

MANISHA SAHU VS STATE OF U. P. - 2018 Supreme(All) 468

On the basis of that application, the Superintendent of Police, Chandauli directed the investigating officer to produce the victim again before the learned Court below for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the second statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.