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…!
Omnibus Marking of Statements - Not Allowed: The Supreme Court and various judicial authorities have consistently held that omnibus marking of the entire statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. is not permissible. This is explicitly clarified in Clause 10 Sub-Clause (v) of SCC 598 and other rulings, emphasizing that each statement should be marked separately to maintain clarity and prevent prejudice ["2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1581"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16999"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 318"].
Procedure for Marking Statements - Proper Marking Required: Courts have recognized that failure to properly mark statements recorded under Section 164, whether by omission or non-marking, does not necessarily invalidate the prosecution, but it is considered a procedural lapse. Proper marking ensures the statement’s admissibility and aids in fair trial proceedings. The practice of omnibus marking is deprecated and can lead to procedural errors ["2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 36228"], ["2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6501"].
Court Rulings and Practice - Strict Adherence Recommended: Various cases highlight the importance of adhering to proper procedures in marking statements. The courts have allowed marking of statements under Section 164 but have condemned omnibus marking practices, emphasizing that each statement must be individually identified and marked to uphold the integrity of evidence ["2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 318"], ["2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 36228"].
Impact of Non-marking - Not Always Fatal: While non-marking or improper marking of statements recorded under Section 164 is not automatically fatal to the prosecution’s case, it is regarded as a procedural irregularity. The courts have allowed cases to proceed despite such lapses, provided the statements are otherwise admissible and the defect does not cause prejudice ["2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6501"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The consensus across authoritative judgments is clear that omnibus marking of entire statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. is not allowed. Proper, individual marking of each statement is essential for admissibility and procedural correctness. Omnibus marking is deprecated and may be considered a procedural lapse, but it does not automatically vitiate the prosecution if the statements are otherwise properly recorded and relevant. Therefore, in legal proceedings, each statement should be marked separately to ensure adherence to established legal standards ["2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1581"], SCC 598, ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16999"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 318"].
In criminal trials across India, statements recorded under play a crucial role. But a common question arises: Whether of 164 statement is allowed? refers to exhibiting the entire statement as evidence wholesale, without specifying relevant portions. This practice has been scrutinized by courts, as it can impact the fairness of trials. This post delves into the legal principles, exceptions, and judicial insights to clarify this issue.
Understanding the nuances is vital for lawyers, accused persons, and even witnesses navigating the criminal justice system. While this provides general information based on precedents, it is not legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for specific cases.
empowers magistrates to record statements or confessions during investigations. These are typically taken from witnesses or accused before trial. However, their evidentiary value is limited. They are not but serve specific purposes in court.
Key to this discussion is how these statements are marked or exhibited during trials. Marking involves formally admitting documents as exhibits, but courts have repeatedly cautioned against blanket admission.
Indian courts, including the , have established clear guidelines:
These principles ensure trials remain fair, preventing misuse of pre-trial statements that might have been recorded under pressure or without full context.
In one ruling, the court emphasized: Statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is a previous statement and can only be confronted in accordance with and relevant portion should be made part of the deposition. The practice adopted by the trial Court in marking Section 164 Cr.P.C statement is incorrect 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 112. This directly prohibits .
While the general rule is restrictive, exceptions exist:
Another judicial directive states: of the entire statement under S. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C shall not be done. The Presiding Officers shall ensure that only admissible portion... is marked 2021 4 Supreme 555. This underscores the need for precision.
In POCSO cases, courts have noted: Statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C is not it can be only used either for or 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 2923. Even non-marking isn't always fatal if other evidence suffices.
Courts have consistently struck down improper marking. For instance:
High Courts have also intervened. One petition set aside an impugned order, highlighting procedural lapses in handling such statements
. In conspiracy cases, courts stressed that prior statements must align with Section 145 Evidence Act for confrontation 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2314.
A key takeaway from precedents: Therefore the witness who gave the 164 statement should be made to prove it while marking the statement through him 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2314. This ensures accountability.
Trial judges must conduct preliminary hearings post-charge framing to schedule witnesses and admit documents properly, as per Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 4 Supreme 555.
To avoid errors:1. Identify Relevant Portions: Highlight only contradictory/cor roborative parts.2. Confront During Cross-Examination: Show the witness the specific excerpt.3. Mark Precisely: Exhibit as, e.g., Ex. P-10(a) for the portion.4. Examine the Recorder if Needed: Magistrate's role in proving voluntariness.
In POCSO or sensitive cases, while exceptions apply, the core principle holds: no wholesale marking.
of Section 164 statements is generally not allowed. Courts permit only targeted use for or , ensuring justice isn't compromised by procedural shortcuts. Relevant portions must be specifically marked, with defense cross-examination rights protected.
Key Takeaways:- Section 164 statements are not 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 589.- Mark only admissible parts 2017 3 Supreme 322.- Exceptions under 164(5A)(b) are narrow 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 1144.- Follow Section 145 Evidence Act strictly 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 112.
This prevailing view promotes fair trials. For case-specific guidance, seek professional legal counsel. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence to navigate criminal proceedings effectively.
#Section164CrPC #CriminalLaw #LegalInsights
[(2021) 10 SCC 598], Clause 10 Sub-Clause (v) makes it clear that omnibus marking of the entire statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.PC shall not be done. ... to summon and examine the Magistrate who recorded the statement of PW3 under Section 164 Cr.PC. ... At the time of investigation, his statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate concerned, under Section #H....
[(2021) 10 SCC 598], Clause 10 Sub-Clause (v) makes it clear that omnibus marking of the entire statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.PC shall not be done. ... to summon and examine the Magistrate who recorded the statement of PW3 under Section 164 Cr.PC. ... At the time of investigation, his statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate concerned, under Section #H....
While considering the point, the Apex Court holds that omnibus marking of entire statement under Sections 161 and 164 shall not be done; it is not done in the case at hand. ... On 20-06-2024 the concerned Court hears on marking of statement of PW-1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. ... Omnibus marking of the entire statement....
The learned Counsel placed reliance on the citations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and stated that the practice of omnibus marking of the statement of the witness deserves to be deprecated. ... Though the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was marked only through the Investigating Officer and therefore, the omni-bus mark....
This petition stands allowed. ... Accordingly, keeping in view the above facts as convassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is allowed and impugned order dated 30.09.2021 is set aside. ... (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE 14.02.2023 M.Sikka Wheather speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: by the counsel for claimant on account of the fact that the petitioner, who is more than 60 years of age was....
The instant case offers a good example of the difficulties caused by the absence of such a statement. ... Application allowed. ... The only question which had to be decided was which of the applications should be allowed. ... Held, that, under section 7 of the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance, the applicant's application should be granted. ... Section 7 of the Omnibus Service Licensi....
It was also complained that the appellant as a long distance " company ought not to be allowed to start a new kind of service and to carry passengers who were accustomed to make use of the omnibus of a " town service " company. ... For these reasons their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed and that the Order of the Appeal Tribunal should be restored. The respondent will pay the costs of the app....
cannot, with due regard to the safety and convenience of the public, be allowed A statement of fact should include the decision given by the Commissioner from whose order the appeal had been taken. ... Section 45 requires the licensing authority to forward to the Commissioner every application so received together with a recommendation that the licence be allowed or refused. ... category of " additional omnibus The ....
Appeal allowed. ... Sri Lanka Omnibus Co.,Ltd. ... After proceeding to outline what he considered should be the procedure by which Tribunals of Appeal should be guided, the learned Judge concluded with the statement that the form in which the case had been sent up prevented him from expressing his opinion on the specific questions raised and the ... On the other hand a grant of a licence to the respondents would mean that they w....
It is further submitted that though the statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it was not marked and mere non-marking of statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., would not vitiate the prosecution. ... While deciding the case, the statement of the victim girl, which was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., is necessary, however, the learned Judge,....
Statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is a previous statement and can only be confronted in accordance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act and relevant portion should be made part of the deposition. 6. The practice adopted by the trial Court in marking Section 164 Cr.P.C statement is incorrect. It appears that for the reason of witness accepting his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, it was marked, which procedure is incorrect.
The aforesaid rule applicable to recording of the statements under Section 161 shall mutatis mutandis apply to statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, whenever such portions of prior statements of living persons are used for contradiction/corroboration. v. Omnibus marking of the entire statement under S. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C shall not be done. The Presiding Officers shall ensure that only admissible portion of Section 8 or Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is mar....
Even in that statement, the victim in this case clearly admitted that she was living with the appellant from 2014 onwards and gave birth to two children. In this regard, even non marking of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C is not substantive evidence it can be only used either for corroboration or contradiction.
Considering the deposition of PW3, it can be seen that on material aspects touching the incident he has supported the prosecution to a great extent fortifying the presence of PW2 at the time of occurrence. It is true that wholesome marking of the statement of PW3 recorded by PW29 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was an irregular procedure. PW29 deposed that PW3 gave the statement to her voluntarily and without any external pressure. She deposed that she had conducted the preliminary....
Therefore the witness who gave the 164 statement should be made to prove it while marking the statement through him. In that case the Magistrate who recorded the 164 statement need not be examined. If the witness admits in his evidence before the Court that he gave a former statement to the Magistrate and the statement shown to him is that, then the 164 statement stands proved.
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
