Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Some judgments have expressed skepticism about the Magistrate giving oral evidence of the statement, emphasizing that the recording itself suffices for evidentiary purposes ["Faisal Ashraf VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Jagdishbhai Arjanbhai Gondalia Patel vs State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"]- ["Musst Anjuma Bibi, W/o. Late. Sanowar Ali VS State Of Assam, Represented By PP, Assam - Gauhati"]- ["Nikhildas Son Of Dasan vs State Of Kerala - Kerala"]- ["Manoj vs State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - Kerala"]- ["Pankaj VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["MOHD. YASEEN VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Faisal Ashraf VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Sirajuddin VS State of UP - Allahabad"]- ["Md. Ahmed Ali VS State of Assam - Gauhati"]
In criminal proceedings, statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) play a pivotal role. A common query arises: need a citation wherein it is held that examination of Magistrate in court in evidence who recorded statement of witness U/s 164 Cr.P.C.? This question touches on the authority of magistrates to record such statements and whether they must later be examined in court as witnesses. While magistrates' recordings carry weight, their power is not absolute, and courts have clarified when examination is—or isn't—required. This post breaks down key legal principles, citations, and practical insights.
Magistrates do not have unfettered power to record statements under Section 164 CrPC. Typically, this authority is limited to situations where the person is presented or sponsored by the investigating agency. A key ruling emphasizes: a Magistrate does not have the authority to record the statement of a person who is not sponsored or presented by the investigating agency, and that such recordings are not valid unless they comply with the procedural safeguards prescribed in Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Pintu Singh @ Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Singh VS State Of Bihar - 2005 0 Supreme(Pat) 1055
In one case, the court quashed an order permitting recording of witnesses' statements without proper sponsorship, stating: The Magistrate's power to record statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is limited to situations where the person is presented or sponsored by the investigation authority Pintu Singh @ Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Singh VS State Of Bihar - 2005 0 Supreme(Pat) 1055. This underscores that Section 164(1) confines the magistrate's role to statements from persons properly brought before him in the course of an investigation or inquiry.
Failure to follow these limits renders statements invalid. Courts stress adherence to procedural safeguards under Section 164(2), such as ensuring voluntariness and freedom from coercion. Non-compliance can lead to quashing: The order permitting recording of statements of witnesses without proper sponsorship or compliance with procedural safeguards was quashed Pintu Singh @ Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Singh VS State Of Bihar - 2005 0 Supreme(Pat) 1055.
Not all statements require these safeguards. For instance, statements by customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible without Section 164(2) precautions, subject to voluntariness tests under Section 24 of the Evidence Act: the safeguards envisaged in Section 164(2) of Cr.P.C... are not applicable when statements are recorded by customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, Rajamundry VS Duncan Agro Industries LTD. - 2000 5 Supreme 444. This highlights context-specific rules.
A critical aspect is whether the magistrate who recorded the Section 164 statement must be summoned and examined in trial court. Indian courts have held that the magistrate need not be examined, as the statement is akin to a public document.
The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra observed regarding statements recorded by a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC: it forms prior evidence usable for contradiction or corroboration Jeffrey Hrangkhal VS State of Tripura - 2020 Supreme(Tri) 39. Further, in Ramprasad vs. State of A.P. 2003 CRI.L.J. 3253, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled: since the previous statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has been recorded by a Magistrate, it is a public document, the Magistrate need not be summoned and examined as a witness Jeffrey Hrangkhal VS State of Tripura - 2020 Supreme(Tri) 39R. Palanisamy VS State by Inspector of Police - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1715.
This principle is echoed elsewhere: With regard to the statement of a witness recorded by a Magistrate u/s.164 Cr.P.C., ... the Magistrate need not be summoned and examined as a witness R. Palanisamy VS State by Inspector of Police - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1715. Thus, while the statement's contents may be proved by the police officer who brought the witness, the magistrate's testimony is generally unnecessary.
Statements under Section 164 CrPC are not substantive evidence but can be used for contradiction (Section 145, Evidence Act) or corroboration (Section 157, Evidence Act). As noted: The statement of a witness recorded under Sections 161 or 164 CrPC can only be used to contradict or corroborate the witness under section 145 or 157 of the Indian Evidence Act but it cannot... Sirajuddin VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2667
In POCSO cases, courts affirm: Statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and can only be used for contradiction or corroboration during cross-examination Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru S/O Late Gurumurthy VS State Of Karnataka - 2024 Supreme(Kar) 318. Similarly, A statement recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. from a witness is like a statement recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C.—not subject to cross-examination at recording time, hence limited use R. Pughazhenthi VS State by Inspector of Police, Avadi Police Station, Thiruvallur District - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4135.
Can a witness approach a magistrate independently? One petition questioned: whether a witness, of his own has the right to approach a Magistrate to record his statement under S.164 CrPC; and whether such Magistrate is under a legal obligation to record the statement Nafeesa v. State of U. P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others - 2015 Supreme(Online)(All) 75. This aligns with limits on magistrate authority without agency sponsorship Pintu Singh @ Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Singh VS State Of Bihar - 2005 0 Supreme(Pat) 1055.
For confessions, extra precautions apply: before recording a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. the Magistrate must give sufficient time to an accused to ponder over whether he would make a confession or not Afshan Ajeem @ Afshan Azeem @ Afsa Azim @ Anjum VS State of Bihar. Non-compliance led to acquittal in a murder conspiracy case, as the statement failed mandatory requirements Afshan Ajeem @ Afshan Azeem @ Afsa Azim @ Anjum VS State of Bihar.
In another: The judicial magistrate (PW23) recorded the accused's statement, but it wasn't binding on co-accused, contributing to acquittal due to evidentiary gaps Biswajit Pal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 408.
Courts exercise Section 311 CrPC judiciously for recalling witnesses. If a witness was examined regarding prior Section 161/164 statements, re-examination may not be needed: the witness had been examined at length with regard to her statement under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, there was no need to recall her again for re-examination Sirajuddin VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2667. An order for re-examination was quashed for lack of justification Sirajuddin VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2667.
Note: This is general information based on cited rulings. Legal outcomes depend on specific facts; consult a qualified lawyer for advice.
Understanding these nuances ensures robust evidence handling in trials. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence.
#CrPC164,#MagistrateEvidence,#CriminalLaw
The jurisprudence concerning a statement under Section 164 CrPC is fairly clear. Such a statement is not considered as a substantive piece of evidence, as substantive oral evidence is one which is deposed before the Court and is subjected to cross-examination. ... A proposition to the effect that if a statement of a witness isrecorded under Section 164, his evidence in Court shou....
At the time of defence evidence, the accused sought to examine the Magistrate who recorded the statement of PW3 under Section 164 Cr.PC. ... When a witness makes a statement in his evidence before the Court which is inconsistent with what he has stated in his statement recorded by the Police, there is a contradiction. ... to summon and examine the Magistrate who recorde....
Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Others, AIR 1954 SC 300, this Court held that a person can "be a witness" not merely by giving oral evidence but also by producing documents or making intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See S.119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. ... Evidence Act , 1872 such that the maker of the statement can be cross-examined on such statement, without the #HL_ST....
The statement of the P.W.3 was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that on the date of incident at about 10:00 p.m., he was at his house. Suddenly there was a sound. ... The law is well settled that a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and it can be used to corroborate the statement of a witness and it can be used to contradi....
In view of the above also, it can be said that the witness had been examined at length with regard to her statement under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, there was no need to recall her again for re-examination. ... The statement of a witness recorded under Sections 161 or 164 CrPC can only be used to contradict or corroborate the witness under section 145 or 157 of the Indian Evidence Act but it cannot....
In view of the above also, it can be said that the witness had been examined at length with regard to her statement under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, there was no need to recall her again for re-examination. ... The application was opposed by the defence but it was allowed on the ground that during the course of examination-in-chief, no evidence of the witness could be recorded for proving her statement under Sectio....
The Court further held that before recording a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. the Magistrate must give sufficient time to an accused to ponder over whether he would make a confession or not. ... Appeal (DB) of 973 of 2015) was apprehended by the police, whose statement was recorded before a learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. ... The evidence of Hanuman Jha (PW-1) is of no significance f....
The question raised by way of this petition is as to whether a witness, of his own has the right to approach a Magistrate to record his statement under S.164 CrPC; and whether such Magistrate is under a legal obligation to record the statement of such witness under S.164 CrPC, when investigation in a ... accused / culprits might be asked to approach court of the Magistrate for creating record / evidence....
PW23- The judicial magistrate who recorded the statement of the accused Sukdev Pal. ... judicial magistrate who recorded such confessional statement) as to why he was making such confessional statement. ... on such statement, without the need for recording the same at the time of trial.] (6)The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the ....
State of Karnataka, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C cannot be considered to be evidence under Section 35 of POCSO ACT. ... The Lahore High Court held as follows; “The fact that the person who made the statement under S. 164 is the person in Court can be proved by the police officer who had the s....
L.J. 2889 (SC)], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: With regard to the statement of a witness recorded by a Magistrate u/s. 164 Cr.P.C., in RAMPRASAD VS. L.J. 3253], a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that since the previous statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has been recorded by a Magistrate, it is a public document, the Magistrate need not be summoned and examined as a witness.
16. PW.11 is the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bijni, who recorded the statement of witness Ira Narzary u/s.164 CrPC.
They tried hard, but on account of busy schedule and summer vacations in the Court, it could not be recorded. It is important to note here that it has come in the statements of Investigating Officer Ashwini Kumar Sinha PW-14 that on 13.6.2012 all the three victims were given in the supurdgi of the Nepal police and on 18.6.2012 they were brought to Court for recording their statements u/s 164 Cr. P. C. He has fairly admitted that his application for recording statement u/s 164 Cr. P. C. was not rejected by the Court. In cross-examination Mr. Sinha has stated that no statement u/s 16....
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [1999 CRI.L.J. 2889 (SC)], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: 40. With regard to the statement of a witness recorded by a Magistrate u/s.164 Cr.P.C., in RAMPRASAD VS. STATE OF A.P. [2003 CRI.L.J. 3253], a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that since the previous statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has been recorded by a Magistrate, it is a public document, the Magistrate need not be summoned and examined as a witness.
It is recorded during the investigation behind the back of the accused. It is not subjected to cross-examination of the accused. 8. A statement recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. from a witness is like a statement recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C.
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
