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…!
The absence of cross-examination or adequate explanation for delays can impact the evidentiary value of the statement, but procedural flexibility remains for recording statements at different stages of investigation ["Raju Janki Yadav v. State of U. P. and Others - Allahabad"], ["Nafeesa v. State of U. P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:["Raju Janki Yadav v. State of U. P. and Others - Allahabad"]["Nafeesa v. State of U. P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others - Allahabad"]["GUDIA DEVI vs UT OF J AND K TH SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAJOURI AND ANOTHER - Jammu and Kashmir"]["Manorama Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]["PERVAIZE AKHTAR ALIAS PARVEENA AKHTER vs UT OF J AND K INCHARGE POLICE STATION BILLAWAR KATHUA - Jammu and Kashmir"]["Rasik Vithaldas Shah VS State of Maharashtra & another - Bombay"]["Public Prosecutor A. P VS K. Hanumantha Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"]["State of Madras represented by the Public Prosecutor Madras v. G. Krishnan - Madras"]["Phulmani Gudia vs The State Of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]
In criminal investigations across India, statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) play a pivotal role. These are judicial statements made before a Magistrate, intended to capture a witness's account early to safeguard against later fabrication or influence. But what happens when there's a delay in recording a 164 statement? Does it doom the evidence, or can it still hold weight?
This common query—delay in recording 164 statement—arises frequently in trials, appeals, and investigations. While a delay doesn't automatically make the statement inadmissible, it raises red flags about its reliability. Courts typically demand explanations for such delays to rule out tutoring, coercion, or undue influence. This post breaks down the legal principles, court approaches, exceptions, and insights from key judgments to help you navigate this nuanced area of criminal law.
Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
The core principle is clear: A delay in recording a Section 164 CrPC statement significantly impacts its evidentiary value but does not render it inadmissible outright. Courts emphasize that the recording is a judicial act requiring procedural safeguards, including timeliness and voluntariness. Unexplained delays often lead to suspicions of manipulation, reducing the statement to corroborative rather than substantive evidence. Sankhi Chiba VS State of Arunachal Pradesh - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 1279
Key points include:- Timely recording is crucial: Prompt action prevents false claims and ensures the witness's testimony remains untainted. Sankhi Chiba VS State of Arunachal Pradesh - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 1279- Scrutiny for delays: Courts carefully examine delays; without justification, they cast doubt on reliability. Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh: Harbans Singh Bhan Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1957 0 Supreme(SC) 40Anjan Das Gupta VS State of West Bengal - 2016 8 Supreme 347- Limited use: Delayed statements can corroborate or contradict trial testimony but aren't standalone proof unless explained. Sankhi Chiba VS State of Arunachal Pradesh - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 1279Tuku @ Abdul Naim Khan VS State Of Odisha - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 72
Section 164 CrPC allows Magistrates to record statements or confessions during investigations. These aren't substantive evidence per se but serve to test witness credibility at trial. The law prioritizes preventing fabrication, making timeliness a cornerstone. As noted, the primary purpose... is to prevent false claims and to ensure that the witness’s testimony is not fabricated or influenced. Sankhi Chiba VS State of Arunachal Pradesh - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 1279Tuku @ Abdul Naim Khan VS State Of Odisha - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 72
Judgments repeatedly stress prompt recording. For instance, the delay in recording the statements of witnesses... speaks much and raises suspicion of tutoring or coercion. Anjan Das Gupta VS State of West Bengal - 2016 8 Supreme 347 Similarly, a considerable delay is caused in recording statement under Section 164 and that such delay, without proper explanation, affects the credibility of the statement. Baij Nath Sah VS State of Bihar - 2010 3 Supreme 667
In one case, an unexplained delay led courts to deem the statement highly unsafe to rely on. Baij Nath Sah VS State of Bihar - 2010 3 Supreme 667
When delays lack justification, courts view statements cautiously:- Adverse inferences: No explanation? Expect doubts of tutoring or coaching. Baij Nath Sah VS State of Bihar - 2010 3 Supreme 667- Corroboration only: Use limited to supporting or challenging trial evidence, not as proof of facts. Sankhi Chiba VS State of Arunachal Pradesh - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 1279Tuku @ Abdul Naim Khan VS State Of Odisha - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 72- Holistic evaluation: Voluntariness and circumstances are probed separately. Sankhi Chiba VS State of Arunachal Pradesh - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 1279
From additional precedents, delays in related contexts reinforce this. In a murder appeal, There was unexplained delay in recording his statement, contributing to acquittal doubts under circumstantial evidence chains. Fida Hussain VS State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 1199 Another highlighted inordinate delays in witness statements under Section 161 CrPC, noting they may be fatal to prosecution's case if unexplained, urging courts to demand IO explanations. Jafarudheen VS State of Kerala - 2022 4 Supreme 732
Not all delays are deal-breakers. Courts uphold statements if:- Bona fide reasons exist: Health issues, unavoidable circumstances, or logistical hurdles. Sankhi Chiba VS State of Arunachal Pradesh - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 1279- Satisfactory explanation: Documented clearly, e.g., witness recovery from injuries. In a case, delay was excused as the witness suffered a very serious injury... and would be more keen to provide him medical help rather than record his statement. Pramod VS State of Maharashtra - 2012 Supreme(Bom) 1562- Voluntariness proven: Even with delay, if untainted, value persists. Witnesses resiling later requires careful assessment. Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh: Harbans Singh Bhan Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1957 0 Supreme(SC) 40
Special cases like vulnerable witnesses (e.g., children or deaf-mute) demand extra safeguards. In a POCSO matter, a child's statement was videographed despite minor delay concerns, as the learned Presiding Officer deemed it appropriate. JNANEDAR NATH DAS VS STATE - 2016 Supreme(Del) 132 For a deaf-dumb rape victim, improper recording vitiated the trial, stressing qualified interpreters. Manoj vs State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2624
Non-substantive nature reiterated: a statement under Section 164, although not a substantive piece of evidence... requires corroboration, especially if witnesses turn hostile. Jagdishbhai Arjanbhai Gondalia Patel vs State Of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1757
These cases show courts' balanced yet cautious stance.
To maximize evidentiary strength:- Investigators/Magistrates: Record promptly with safeguards; document delay reasons if unavoidable.- Prosecution: Explain delays robustly; corroborate with other evidence.- Defense: Challenge unexplained delays to undermine credibility.- Courts: Scrutinize for coaching indicators.
In summary, while delays in Section 164 CrPC statements don't bar admissibility, unexplained ones erode trust, limiting them to corroborative roles. Courts demand justifications to dispel coercion fears, as echoed across judgments: such a long delay... is highly unsafe to rely on. Baij Nath Sah VS State of Bihar - 2010 3 Supreme 667 Always prioritize timeliness for robust cases.
Key takeaways:- Explain delays satisfactorily.- Prove voluntariness independently.- Use for corroboration if delayed.
Stay informed on evolving precedents—timely action can make or break a case.
This analysis draws from reported judgments and is for informational purposes only.
#CrPC164, #LegalDelay, #WitnessStatement
The reason is that there is a full fledged provision under S.164 Cr.P.C. authorizing the recording of such a statement by a judicial Magistrate. ... It has to be presumed that the recording of the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. had regularly been performed as is envisages by S.114 of the Indian Evidence Act. ... is recorded, he again records the recording of such a statement in the order - sheet of the same record and transmits the record along with ....
his statement under S.164 of the Code. ... A witness can be produced before the Magistrate for recording his / her statement under S.164 CrPC only by the investigating officer. Apparently, the petitioner has already given her statement once under S.164 CrPC, on the asking of the investigating agency. ... 17. ... The petitioner moved application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - I, Sitapur for recording her statement#HL_EN....
The Code does not contemplate any bar against recording statement of a witness under Section 161 of the Code and correspondingly under Section 164-A more than once, Such a bar as a matter of fact cannot be imposed because cases may not be rare where necessity of recording ... In a case where the magistrate has to perform the duty of recording a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he is under an obligation to elicit all information which the witness wishes to disclos....
There is nothing in law to prevent the I.O. from moving an application for recording of statement of the witness/victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. for the second time or so on. For certain good reasons, the statement under sections 164 Cr.P.C. can be recorded more than once. ... During the course of investigation, the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 29.04.2023. Thereafter, her statement under Section 164....
It is a settled law that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not prohibit recording of statement of a witness either under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or under Section 164 Cr.P.C. more than once, if the situation warrants so. ... In view of the above position of law, the present petition is disposed of with a liberty to the concerned investigating officer to accord consideration to the prayer of the petitioner and thereafter, take a decision with regard to the necessity of re-recording her statement under Secti....
Considering the conceptual requirement of recording a statement before a Judicial Magistrate during the course of investigation and the utility thereof, as prescribed in Section 157 of Evidence Act, it could be observed that a statement under Section 164, although not a substantive piece of evidence, ... The entire statements of all the four witnesses are verbatim and on perusal of these statements at Exh.158 to 161, recording of satisfaction by learned Magistrate that witnesses have beenexplained, repe....
Madhavan was produced before me on 20/1/2020 at 5.20 PM for recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C Section 164 (5-A)(b) of the Cr.P.C, and since the recording of that statement was not in accordance with the law as noticed earlier and further since the appellant’s counsel was clearly not in a position to cross examine PW1 (in the facts and circumstances of this case), I am inclined
The argument was put thus : A confession or statement made under S.164 CrPC was in substance nothing more than a statement of the deponent, a private individual; the recording of the same under S.164 is done with the object of perpetuating the testimony, so as to pin down the parties making statements ... A magistrate recording a statement or confession under S.164 CrPC is performing a judicial act and the record would be a public document within the....
Without availing such remedies, a prayer before this Court seeking a direction to the police for recording 164 Cr.P.C. statements cannot be entertained, as it would not be in consonance with the procedure established by law. This writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief: “issue any other appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not recording ... The substance of the petitioners’ grievance is that the investigating agency failed to recor....
The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Egmore, Chennai, is hereby reminded that, it is duty cast on the Learned Magistrate to record the statement of the victim without any delay. Further the recording of 164 Cr.P.C statement of the minor victim girl Court is not must. ... Further, submitted that, direction may be issued to the Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Egmore, Chennai, to complete the recording of 164 Cr.P.C statement. ... Considering the same, ....
There was unexplained delay in recording his statement.”
The delay in reporting the matter to the police has thus been fully explained.” Delay in Recording the Statement under Section 161 Cr.PC:
She further submitted that the said dying declaration is not in the question and answer form and it is in the form of narration and as such the same cannot be considered to be a dying declaration. She further submitted that if at all the victim was intending to give dying declaration or the statement, the same should have been recorded by the duty doctor. Hence, there is a delay in recording such statement. She further submitted that the alleged incident has taken place on 2.1.2010 at about 8.30 p.m. but the statement of the victim has been recorded on 3.1.2010 at about 11.....
It belies the appellant’s plea that there was inordinate delay in recording the 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The proceedings under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-1/A) records that as the prosecutrix was a small child of five years, the learned Presiding Officer deemed it appropriate to get the proceedings of recording of the statement videographed and vide order dated 20.03.2013, directed the Investigating Officer to make arrangements for conducting videography.
Ultimately, his statement was recorded by the police rather belatedly, after he came out of the hospital. We are not inclined to accept this argument mainly because this witness suffered a very serious injury in the incident and looking to the nature of the injury, he, himself as well as Investigating Officer etc. would be more keen to provide him medical help rather than record his statement. There is thus considerable delay in recording his statement. Learned Advocate appearing for the accused asserted that due to this delay the testimony of this witness should be discard....
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
