Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Use of Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements in Trials - Generally, statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence but can be used for corroboration or contradiction of other witnesses. Courts require corroboration from the confessional statement before convicting based solely on it Biswajit Pal VS State of West Bengal - Calcutta.
Admissibility and Reliability - Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are made before a magistrate and are not signed by the maker, which affects their evidentiary value. The Supreme Court has emphasized that such statements are not substantive evidence and are primarily for corroborative purposes Ajay Kuli S/O Lt. Debeswar Kuli vs State Of Assam - Gauhati, Dipak Bordoloi S/o Late Bidyadhar Bordoloi VS State of Assam - Gauhati, Manish Kumar Das @ Raja Goalpara VS State of Assam, Rep. by PP - Gauhati, Arjun Boro son of Late Krishna Boro VS State of Meghalaya represented by the Commissioner - Crimes.
Identity and Consistency Issues - Discrepancies in witness statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., such as differing names or descriptions of the accused, can undermine the evidence unless properly established and corroborated ARJUN BORO vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA - Meghalaya.
Non-Exhibition and Non-Examination - Statements recorded under Section 164 are inadmissible if not exhibited during trial or if the maker is not examined, as exemplified by cases where such statements were not produced or confronted with witnesses, affecting their evidentiary weight Jhakari Chouhan, S/o. Late Lakshan Chouhan VS State of Assam, Represented by the PP, Assam - Gauhati, Manish Kumar Das @ Raja Goalpara VS State of Assam, Rep. by PP - Gauhati.
Legal Precedents - Courts have held that statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and should not be solely relied upon for conviction unless supported by other evidence. Proper identification of accused and confrontation of witnesses with their statements are necessary for legal validity AKHILESH YADAV @ AKHILESH KUMAR Vs The State - Patna, Arjun Boro VS State of Meghalaya - Meghalaya.
Analysis and Conclusion:In summary, statements of a deceased person recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are generally not admissible as substantive evidence in a trial. They can serve as corroborative evidence if properly exhibited and if the maker is examined in court. Courts require corroboration from other witnesses and proper identification of the accused. Failure to exhibit these statements or confront witnesses with their prior statements can lead to their inadmissibility, thereby weakening the prosecution's case. Therefore, while such statements can assist in establishing facts, they cannot be used as sole or primary evidence for conviction in a trial.
In high-stakes criminal trials, the testimony of a deceased witness can be pivotal. A common question arises: Can we use the 164 statement of a deceased person in a trial? This query often surfaces in cases involving assaults, accidents, or homicides where a victim's recorded statement under Section 164 of the CrPC becomes crucial after their death. However, admissibility isn't straightforward. Generally, such statements may only be used under specific conditions outlined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly Section 32(1). This post explores the legal framework, key precedents, limitations, and practical insights to help you understand this nuanced area of evidence law.
Note: This is general information based on legal principles and case law. It is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The statement made by a deceased person can typically be used as evidence in a trial only if it falls within Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. This section allows statements relating to the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death, but only when the cause of death is in question. If the deceased's death is not established as resulting from the incident or injuries in question, such statements are generally not admissible. Surendran VS State of Kerala - 2022 5 Supreme 303BABUBHAI BHIMABHAI BOKHIRIA VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 264
For instance, The statement made by the deceased person will be treated as an evidence and admissible in a Court of law. Mahenderkar Amarnath VS State of Telangana - 2021 Supreme(Telangana) 134 - 2021 0 Supreme(Telangana) 134 This admissibility stems from the Latin maxim Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentiri (a person on the verge of death is presumed not to lie), but it applies narrowly. Manasa alias Jwala VS State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad through P. S. Bhuvangiri - 2021 Supreme(Telangana) 148 - 2021 0 Supreme(Telangana) 148
Here are the essential principles:
Courts emphasize: Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and only for corroboration or contradiction. Baij Nath Sah VS State of Bihar - 2010 3 Supreme 667
Section 32(1) makes a deceased person's statement relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death. Surendran VS State of Kerala - 2022 5 Supreme 303 Yet, if the death isn't linked to the transaction (e.g., injuries from the alleged crime), it loses evidentiary value. This ensures reliability, as the necessity arises from the witness's unavailability for cross-examination.
Such statements are relevant... whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. Manasa alias Jwala VS State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad through P. S. Bhuvangiri - 2021 Supreme(Telangana) 148 - 2021 0 Supreme(Telangana) 148
For use in trial:- The cause of death must be directly in question.- The statement must relate to the transaction causing death.
If unrelated—say, a general complaint not tied to fatal injuries—it's typically excluded. Moti Singh VS State Of U. P. - 1960 0 Supreme(SC) 17
Section 164 CrPC allows magistrates to record statements or confessions, often for reliability. But for a deceased maker:
Additional insights from precedents:- Discrepancies between Section 161/164 statements (e.g., accused identification) weaken them without corroboration.- If not exhibited in trial or maker not examined, they're inadmissible. Jhakari Chouhan, S/o. Late Lakshan Chouhan VS State of Assam, Represented by the PP, Assam - GauhatiManish Kumar Das @ Raja Goalpara VS State of Assam, Rep. by PP - Gauhati- Magistrates can't record unsolicited statements without agency sponsorship. NIHAL SINGH VS STATE O - 2007 Supreme(All) 2963 - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 2963
In one case, a witness's improved Section 164 statement after months was questioned, naming the accused only later, highlighting reliability issues. AKHILESH YADAV @ AKHILESH KUMAR Vs The State - Patna
Courts consistently hold Section 164 statements as auxiliary. Generally, statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence but can be used for corroboration or contradiction of other witnesses. Courts require corroboration... before convicting. They lack signatures, affecting weight, and need proper confrontation. Ajay Kuli S/O Lt. Debeswar Kuli vs State Of Assam - GauhatiDipak Bordoloi S/o Late Bidyadhar Bordoloi VS State of Assam - Gauhati
In civil contexts, like pool accidents, deceased-related statements in pleadings don't automatically become evidence without linkage. District Sports Officer, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Dharmapuri VS Raji - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 3160 - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 3160
For accused statements, Section 164(5) doesn't apply, limiting options. Surasani Venkata Reddy VS State of A. P. - 2010 Supreme(AP) 1111 - 2010 0 Supreme(AP) 1111
To maximize chances of admissibility:- Prove Causal Link: Establish death resulted from the incident/injuries.- Relevance Check: Ensure statement covers cause or circumstances of death.- Corroborate: Pair with other evidence; avoid sole reliance on Section 164.- Trial Procedure: Exhibit properly and confront witnesses.- Avoid Pitfalls: Don't use if death cause isn't in issue or unrelated to transaction.
Failure here often leads to exclusion, as in cases where statements weren't produced or linked. Sudhakar VS State Of Maharashtra - 2000 5 Supreme 205
In summary, a deceased person's Section 164 CrPC statement may be used in trial as substantive evidence only if it qualifies under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act—relating to the cause or circumstances of death, with that cause in question. Otherwise, it's limited to corroboration, not proof. Courts prioritize safeguards like cross-examination equivalents and corroboration to prevent miscarriages of justice.
Key Takeaways:- Link death directly to the incident. Moti Singh VS State Of U. P. - 1960 0 Supreme(SC) 17- Use for support, not standalone conviction.- Heed evidentiary limits of Section 164. Baij Nath Sah VS State of Bihar - 2010 3 Supreme 667
Understanding these rules can strengthen your case strategy. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal expert familiar with Indian evidence law.
164. ... (xi) Usually the court requires some corroboration from the confessional statement before convicting the accused person on such a statement.” 26. ... PW21- Father of the deceased. ... PW20- A covillager of the deceased.
BNSS ] had clearly stated of witnessing the appellant attacking the deceased. This fact has been corroborated by PW4 who has proved the use of a bamboo lathi. ... Later on, he came to know the injured person died. On 02.03.2022 police brought him to the magistrate court where his statement has been recorded u/s 164 CrPC. He exhibited the said statement as Ext.P-8 and Ext.P-8/1 and P-8/2 ....
In the statement made under Section 161 Cr.PC, the PW-6 has stated that he had heard that the wife of Birendra Chouhan had died. Further, Birendera Chouhan and his father (Jhakari Chouhan) had taken the dead body for cremation, without informing any other person in the village. ... The evidence given by PW-1, the informant, who lodged the FIR with the Police, shows that he had only heard about the death of the deceased from one pe....
There are certain inconsistencies in the statement made by PW-8 under Section 161 Cr.PC vis-a-vis, her statement made under Section 164 Cr.PC and testimony recorded before the learned Trial Court. ... However, in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.PC and in her evidence, PW-8 stated that she was peeping through the gap in the door, while watching her father set fire to her mother. ... Further, the se....
No.15184 of 2021(4) dt.22-11-2021 2/4 Kumar, son of the deceased Anmol Kumar Sah, it is argued that this alleged eye witness has never named the applicant as a person who fired at the deceased. ... After two and half months, witness Sudhanshu has improved his version in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Except this statement, nothing has come against the app....
The reason being that the said statement made by the daughter of the deceased was not exhibited by the person who recorded the statement and also due to the fact that the maker of the statement was not examined by the learned Trial Court. ... by the learned Trial Court and neither was the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C exhibited by the Ld. ... The learned Amicus Cur....
Arjun Boro alias Amit (First Alias), whereas the PW1 in her evidence before the Trail Court referred the accused person’s name as ‘Bhutt’ and the survivor in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. referred the accused person as ‘Ksuid’. ... He submits that in absence of establishment of proper identity of the accused person before the Trail Court, the conviction of the appellant cannot ....
Arjun Boro alias Amit (First Alias), whereas the PW1 in her evidence before the Trail Court referred the accused person's name as 'Bhutt' and the survivor in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. referred the accused person as 'Ksuid'. ... Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence. - (1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in....
Arjun Boro alias Amit (First Alias), whereas the PW1 in her evidence before the Trail Court referred the accused person’s name as ‘Bhutt’ and the survivor in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. referred the accused person as ‘Ksuid’. ... He submits that in absence of establishment of proper identity of the accused person before the Trail Court, the conviction of the appellant cannot ....
The 1st defendant had filed a written statement inter-alia denying the claim of the plaintiffs and said that there was no permission given by the 1st defendant to the deceased Karthick to use the 2nd defendant's swimming pool. ... From the written statement of the 1st defendant's school as well as the plaint, it is seen that the deceased Karthick had enrolled in the swimming class being conducted by the 2....
Statement written or verbal of relevant facts made by a person, who is dead. The statement made by the deceased person will be treated as an evidence and admissible in a Court of law. The reason behind the same can be followed by a latin maxim Nemo Mariturus Presumuntur Mentri which means that man will not meet his maker with lying on his mouth.
Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. i) The statement made by the deceased person will be treated as an evidence and admissible in a Court of law. “Statement written or verbal of relevant facts made by a person, who is dead”. The reason behind the same can be followed by a la....
If the above statement recorded by the Magistrate is not a dying declaration, whether it can be a statement made under Section 164 (2) or 164 (5) Cr.P.C. Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C. speaks about the statement of a person other than the accused. Hence, the statement of the accused cannot be treated as a statement under Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C. 16.
Un-corroborated testimony under Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement is no evidentiary value and cannot form basis to convict a person. The learned trial Judge relied on Section 281 and 299 of Cr.P.C., and under 33 of the Evidence Act to rely the statement made under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. We are of the considered opinion that the provisions relied on by the learned trial Judge is totally irrelevant and the trial Judge mis-construed the purport of the above said provisions. The stat....
Thus, on a consideration of various aspects, we are disinclined to interpret section 164 (1) of the Code as empowering a Magistrate to record the statement of a person un-sponsored by the investigating agency. The High Court has rightly disallowed the statements of the four appellants to remain on record in this case. Of course, the said course will be without prejudice to their evidence being adduced during trial, if any of the parties requires it. "
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
