Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Courts have observed that these statements can sometimes be inconsistent with other testimonies, leading to questions about their reliability ["MADHU SHUDHAN DUTTO Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI - Delhi"], ["Akhil Sabu, S/o. Sabu VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"], ["INDHC_BRHC010186151993"].
Legal and Procedural Considerations:
There are instances where courts have rejected the use of these statements due to procedural violations or contradictions, highlighting the need for careful handling and proper recording ["Faizullaha Khan vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["INDHC_BRHC010186151993"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["MADHU SHUDHAN DUTTO Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI - Delhi"]- ["XXX VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Raju Janki Yadav v. State of U. P. and Others - Allahabad"]- ["In re B. Arjunappa - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Chandra Mouli VS State of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - Kerala"]- ["A.Chandrasekaran vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. - Madras"]- ["NIKHILDAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]- ["Tuku @ Abdul Naim Khan VS State Of Odisha - Orissa"]- ["Faizullaha Khan vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]- ["INDHC_BRHC010186151993"]
In criminal trials across India, statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) play a crucial role. But a common question arises: 164 Statements can be Marked? The short answer is yes, but only under strict conditions and not as substantive evidence. These statements are primarily tools for assessing witness credibility during trial, used solely for contradiction or corroboration. This blog post dives deep into the legal principles, procedures, and judicial insights to clarify this nuanced area of evidence law.
Whether you're a lawyer, law student, or someone navigating a case, understanding these rules can prevent procedural pitfalls. Let's explore the main findings, key conditions, and real-world applications.
Statements under Section 164 CrPC are not substantive evidence and cannot stand as primary proof of facts in chief. They can only be used to contradict or corroborate a witness's trial testimony, provided procedural safeguards are followed. As established in key judgments, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements are not admissible as substantive evidence in chief R. Shaji VS State of Kerala - 2013 1 Supreme 545Md. Ahmed Ali VS State of Assam - 1998 0 Supreme(Gau) 55.
This limitation ensures fairness, preventing over-reliance on pre-trial statements that might have been influenced by external factors.
Here are the essential guidelines:
The foundational rule is clear: Section 164 statements serve as a tool for the court to assess the credibility of the witness during cross-examination R. Shaji VS State of Kerala - 2013 1 Supreme 545. Courts emphasize their non-substantive nature to uphold trial fairness.
To mark a statement:1. Witness examination: The maker must testify and prove it.2. Admission scenario: Witness admits → Statement marked through them R. Murugesan VS State rep by The Inspector of Police - Crimes (2014)Md. Ahmed Ali VS State of Assam - 1998 0 Supreme(Gau) 55.3. Denial scenario: Prosecution disputes denial, suggests signature match, then calls Magistrate Md. Ahmed Ali VS State of Assam - 1998 0 Supreme(Gau) 55.
The statement should be proved through the witness who gave it; the Magistrate's testimony is only necessary if the witness denies having made the statement Md. Ahmed Ali VS State of Assam - 1998 0 Supreme(Gau) 55.
Courts insist on rigorous proof. The mere marking or admission of the statement is insufficient for its use as evidence Md. Ahmed Ali VS State of Assam - 1998 0 Supreme(Gau) 55. Skipping this renders it inadmissible for contradiction.
The recording's intent is preventive: to deter witnesses from changing their testimony R. Shaji VS State of Kerala - 2013 1 Supreme 545.
In cases of hostile witnesses, reliance falters without corroboration. For instance, Evidence reliance on Section 164 CrPC statements is inadequate when witnesses become hostile, illustrating the need for corroboration and admissibility standards Jagdishbhai Arjanbhai Gondalia Patel vs State Of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1757. Here, convictions based solely on such statements were quashed due to lack of re-examination and procedural flaws.
Similarly, Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court Giriprasad Babu son of Dasarath VS State ACB, Nizamabad Ranga, Nizamabad, Represented by its Spl. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad - 2021 Supreme(Telangana) 171. In a corruption case, conviction failed as demand proof hinged on unadmissible Section 164 statements.
Judicial precedents reinforce these rules. In one appeal, courts rejected reliance on Section 164 statements when witnesses turned hostile, noting the trial court disregarded the testimonies of key witnesses who turned hostile and lacked Section 65-B certification for electronic evidence Jagdishbhai Arjanbhai Gondalia Patel vs State Of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1757. Appeals were allowed, quashing convictions.
Another case highlighted procedural lapses: After comparing the evidence of these three prosecution witnesses with their statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C, we find that they have not stood true to their statements Ghanshyam Yadav @ Ghanshyam Gope @ Gultan VS State of Bihar - 2019 Supreme(Jhk) 550. Investigation flaws compounded issues, leading to acquittals.
In bribery trials, conviction of the appellant vide judgment of the trial Court basis of statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. ... unsustainable Giriprasad Babu son of Dasarath VS State ACB, Nizamabad Ranga, Nizamabad, Represented by its Spl. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad - 2021 Supreme(Telangana) 171, as they weren't substantive.
Even in sensitive matters like rape or murder, courts caution: Statements proved by witnesses can support prosecution if consistent, but failures in recording (e.g., no Section 161 backups) aren't fatal if Section 164 holds Tapan Bose Son of late M. N. Bose VS State of Jharkhand - 2017 Supreme(Jhk) 256. However, retractions demand independent corroboration.
These examples show courts' caution: Reliance on hostile witness testimony cannot suffice for conviction Jagdishbhai Arjanbhai Gondalia Patel vs State Of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1757.
To navigate this effectively:- Prove via witness first: Always examine the maker.- Reserve Magistrate for denials: Avoid unnecessary calls.- Limit to contradiction/corrob: Never treat as fact-prover.- Adhere to procedure: Ensures admissibility and trial integrity.
Prosecutors should anticipate turnovers, preparing corroborative evidence.
Section 164 CrPC statements can indeed be marked, but only as credibility aids, not cornerstones of proof. By following witness-centric proof and limiting Magistrate involvement, trials maintain balance. Missteps, as seen in hostile witness cases, can derail prosecutions Jagdishbhai Arjanbhai Gondalia Patel vs State Of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1757Ghanshyam Yadav @ Ghanshyam Gope @ Gultan VS State of Bihar - 2019 Supreme(Jhk) 550.
Key Takeaways:- Not substantive; for contradiction/corrob only R. Shaji VS State of Kerala - 2013 1 Supreme 545Md. Ahmed Ali VS State of Assam - 1998 0 Supreme(Gau) 55.- Prove through witness; Magistrate if denied R. Murugesan VS State rep by The Inspector of Police - Crimes (2014).- Deter changes, assess truth Md. Ahmed Ali VS State of Assam - 1998 0 Supreme(Gau) 55.
This post provides general insights based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance. Laws and interpretations may evolve.
References:1. R. Shaji VS State of Kerala - 2013 1 Supreme 545: Non-substantive nature and uses.2. R. Murugesan VS State rep by The Inspector of Police - Crimes (2014): Marking procedures.3. Md. Ahmed Ali VS State of Assam - 1998 0 Supreme(Gau) 55: Admissibility criteria.4. Additional cases like Jagdishbhai Arjanbhai Gondalia Patel vs State Of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1757, Giriprasad Babu son of Dasarath VS State ACB, Nizamabad Ranga, Nizamabad, Represented by its Spl. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad - 2021 Supreme(Telangana) 171.
#Section164CrPC, #CriminalEvidence, #LegalInsights
Be that as it may, the Section 164 statement of PW1, i.e. Exhibit PW1/A, has been marked by prosecution, apparently to corroborate the testimony of PW1. I have already referred to Exhibit PW7/A FIS of PW7; Exhibit PW1/A 164 statement of PW1 as well as the testimony of PW1 and PW7. ... Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence. ... Therefore, referring to this, it was submitted that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony and statements o....
As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 CrPC, such statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence.” 21. ... Section 157 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in the committal court or even to contradict the same. ... Section 164. ... Though, Section 164 does provid....
An accused is undoubtedly entitled to inspect statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under S. 164, Criminal P.C. Such statements can be used by the prosecution for the purpose of corroborating the witnesses. ... I am clearly of opinion that the learned Magistrate should have directed copies of the statements under S. 164 to be given to the accused on payment by them of the usual fees and in any case, should have allowed the advocate for the defence to inspect those statements." .....
factum of repercussions of the statements under section 164 of CrPC having been explained and recorded in such statements cannot be relied upon to convict the accused persons. ... In the present matter, there is no reasonable ground to reject the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and reliance has correctly been placed upon the said statements by the courts below.” ... The entire statements of all the four witnesses are verbatim and on perusal of these #HL_STA....
Alur) and their statements under S.164 CrPC before the J. S. C. M. Adoni there is no other evidence (independent of the above depositions and statements) to show as to whether the depositions in the committing court are false or whether the statements under S.164 CrPC are false. ... Alur) has given mutually contradictory findings in saying in one place that both the depositions and the S.164 CrPC statements are false and in another place by stating that the ....
their statements under S.164 of the Code. ... In the present case, one of the arguments advanced by accused for grant of bail to them was based on the statements of the four appellants recorded by the Magistrate under S.164 of the Code. ... We are unable to draw up a dividing line between witnesses whose statements are liable to be recorded by the Magistrate on being approached for that purpose and those not to be recorded. ... straightaway approach a Magistrate for recording his statement under S.#HL_S....
... The observations which relate to S. 162 statements cannot apply to S. 164 statements. ... In the course of the investigation statements have been recorded under S. 164 CrPC. The respondent applied for copies of these statements. The magistrate has directed copies of those statements to be granted to the respondent. ... No such limit for the use is placed in regard to statements under S.164, though such statements#HL_EN....
Cr.P.C statements before the Magistrate as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to file a petition before the Learned Magistrate to record the petitioners 164 Cr.P.C. statements in order to arrive at the truth”. ... The substance of the petitioners’ grievance is that the investigating agency failed to record their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and, further, omitted the prime accused from the charge sheet. ... Since the investigating agency failed to record the petitioners....
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. forthwith. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. ... The learned counsel submitted that the right of the accused to receive all the relevant documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. is still intact and theref....
According to this Court, from the statement of the victim, it is very much clear that she had neither supported the prosecution version nor the statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. ... under Section 164 CrPC. ... She had given the statement under Section 164 CrPC after being directed by some one else. The witness further totally denied the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. ... The object underlying Section 311 CrPC is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of eith....
1. Whether there was demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- was proved by the prosecution. 2. Whether the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C can be relied upon as evidence.
After comparing the evidence of these three prosecution witnesses with their statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C, we find that they have not stood true to their statements made before learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W. 12 who proved the statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C marked as Ext.-9 series.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) refuted the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for Vinayagam. f. Since Saritha had died within seven years from the date of marriage, inquest should have been conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and not by the police; and g. Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses have not been marked. 7. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and plodded through the materials available on record.
The statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. were incorporated in the case diary and if their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. were never recorded, such failure cannot act as an impediment to the efforts of the prosecution in proving its case more so when P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have all proved their 164 Cr.P.C. statements.
(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial: To begin with, the provisions for recording confessional statements can be found in CrPC under Section 164 which reads as: “164.
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
