Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In Indian criminal trials, witnesses often change their stories between pre-trial statements and court testimony. A common question arises: how to prove contradiction in 164 statement? Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows magistrates to record statements during investigations, but these are not substantive evidence on their own. They serve primarily for corroboration or contradiction against in-court testimony. Understanding the precise procedure is crucial for advocates to impeach credibility effectively without procedural lapses. R. Murugesan VS State rep by The Inspector of Police - Crimes (2014)Udhyanithi VS State through The Inspector of Police, Budalur Police Station, Thanjavur - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2314
This guide breaks down the statutory framework, step-by-step process, key judicial insights, and practical recommendations, drawing from Supreme Court and High Court precedents. Note: This is general information; consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific advice.
Statements under Section 164 CrPC are recorded by a magistrate to capture witness versions early, deterring later changes. As held in various cases, the object of recording a statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. is to deter the witness from changing a stand by denying the contents of her previously recorded statement. Deo Kumar Rai VS State of Sikkim - 2017 Supreme(Sikk) 8
However, these statements are not standalone evidence. They can only be used under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act for corroboration (if consistent) or Section 145 for contradiction (if inconsistent). Importantly, a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., can be used for corroboration and for contradiction unlike a statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Subbulakshmi VS Selvaraj - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 482
Failure to follow the correct procedure renders the contradiction unprovable, potentially weakening your case. Nikhildas Son Of Dasan vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1581
Section 145 mandates that to contradict a witness with a prior writing (including 164 statements), the cross-examiner must first draw the witness's attention to the specific contradictory parts. If it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. R. Murugesan VS State rep by The Inspector of Police - Crimes (2014)R. Murugesan VS State - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 253
Omissions in the 164 statement can also qualify as contradictions if significant and relevant, per the Explanation to Section 162 CrPC (applied mutatis mutandis). In such cases, proof requires examining the recording magistrate. Nikhildas Son Of Dasan vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1581
Follow this structured approach during trial:
Confront During Cross-Examination: Point out the exact contradiction. For example: You have stated in the Court that B inflicted the lethal blow, but in your complaint and 164 statement you have stated A has inflicted the lethal blow, is it not? R. Murugesan VS State rep by The Inspector of Police - Crimes (2014)Udhyanithi VS State through The Inspector of Police, Budalur Police Station, Thanjavur - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2314
Mark Specific Portions Only: Do not mark the entire statement omnibus. The relevant portion of the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC used for contradicting the respective witness shall be extracted or indicated specifically with the opening and closing words of the relevant portions through distinct marking. Nikhildas Son Of Dasan vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1581
Prove Via Magistrate if Denied: If the witness denies the statement or for key omissions, summon the recording magistrate. The examination of the learned Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Court was inevitable for proving the above omissions in the prior statement of the witness. Nikhildas Son Of Dasan vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1581 Trial courts should summon magistrates only when necessary, i.e., upon denial. R. Murugesan VS State rep by The Inspector of Police - Crimes (2014)
Mark Through Witness if Admitted: If the witness admits, prove under Section 157 Evidence Act. The witness who gave the 164 statement should be made to prove it while marking the statement through him. If the witness admits ... the 164 statement stands proved. R. Murugesan VS State rep by The Inspector of Police - Crimes (2014)Udhyanithi VS State through The Inspector of Police, Budalur Police Station, Thanjavur - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2314
Non-compliance, like failing to confront, prevents reliance: The learned Public Prosecutor ... did not even confront her by showing the 164 statement made by her before the Court. Udhyanithi VS State through The Inspector of Police, Budalur Police Station, Thanjavur - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2314
When witnesses turn hostile, a proved 164 statement highlights falsity but cannot substitute court evidence. It must be borne in mind that the 164 statement is in the nature of a former statement and it cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence. Udhyanithi VS State through The Inspector of Police, Budalur Police Station, Thanjavur - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2314R. Shaji VS State of Kerala - 2013 1 Supreme 545
In POCSO cases, for instance, 164 statements aid contradiction but require proper confrontation: It has to be noticed that the defence did not confront the prosecutrix with any of the statements, but one. Madhu, S/o Narayanan VS State of Kerala, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Pandikkad, Through The Public Prosecutor - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 681 Similarly, in rape trials, inconsistencies between FIR, 161, and 164 statements are probed during trial, not pre-trial stages. Okansh Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2738
No Omnibus Marking: Entire statements cannot be exhibited without specifics. Nikhildas Son Of Dasan vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1581
Victim Unavailability: If unavailable, 164 alone insufficient without testimony. Baij Nath Sah VS State of Bihar - 2010 3 Supreme 667
Bail and Pre-Trial Stages: Contradictions like those between FIR and 164 may support defense pleas but do not halt proceedings: There are contradiction in the FIR and statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Parmod VS State of Haryana - 2021 Supreme(P&H) 158
Non-Substantive Nature: Even reliable 164 statements need court evidence: The statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. is nothing more than a previous statement, which can be used for contradiction or corroboration. DOCTOR @ VINOD KUMAR VS STATE OF U. P. - 2016 Supreme(All) 349
Courts emphasize fair trials, rejecting mechanical approaches and mandating magistrate summons for proof where needed.
Always confront with exact quotes from the 164 statement.
For omissions, file applications citing Supreme Court guidelines, e.g., In Re: State of Andhra Pradesh. Nikhildas Son Of Dasan vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1581
Adhere to rules like Rule 56A Kerala Criminal Rules for precise extraction.
Prosecutors and defense: Ensure confrontation to avoid appeals on procedural grounds.
Trial courts should reject improper markings to uphold fairness.
Proving a contradiction in a Section 164 statement hinges on strict adherence to Section 145 Evidence Act—confront, mark specifically, and prove appropriately. Mishandling can doom impeachment efforts, as 164 statements remain tools for credibility assessment, not conviction foundations. By following these steps, advocates can effectively challenge unreliable testimony while respecting procedural integrity.
Key Takeaways:- Confront first, prove later.- Specific portions only—no wholesale exhibits.- Magistrate for denials/omissions.- Always pair with substantive court evidence.
Stay informed on evolving precedents to strengthen your trials. For personalized guidance, engage a legal expert.
References:1. Nikhildas Son Of Dasan vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1581: Confrontation, omissions, magistrate proof.2. R. Murugesan VS State rep by The Inspector of Police - Crimes (2014): Sections 145/157 procedures, examples.3. Udhyanithi VS State through The Inspector of Police, Budalur Police Station, Thanjavur - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2314: Proof steps, confrontation failures.4. R. Murugesan VS State - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 253: Substantive vs. corroborative use.5. R. Shaji VS State of Kerala - 2013 1 Supreme 545: Non-substantive limits.
#CrPC164, #EvidenceAct, #LegalGuide
That being the position, the denial of opportunity to the petitioner to prove the contradiction by the examination of the learned Magistrate who recorded the statement of PW3 under Section 164 Cr.PC, would amount to travesty of justice. ... At the time of investigation, his statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate concerned, under Section 164 Cr.PC. ... When a prosecution witness whose statement under S.161(1) or S.164 of CrPC has been recor....
statement intended for contradiction. ... In that event, it would be necessary to prove that he did, and if the former statement was reduced to writing, then S.145 requires that his attention must be drawn to these parts which are to be used for contradiction. But that position does not arise when the witness admits the former statement. ... In the FIS of PW7 and in the 164 statement of PW1, there is no case of penile penetration. Therefore, the case....
This Court has already ruled if any Magistrate records the statement of a witness under Section 164, Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the Sessions Judges to summon that Magistrate to prove the contents of the statement recorded by him. ... The statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C can be used for cross examination as to previous statement made by him and such previous statement can be used only for the purpose of contra....
in contradiction to the statement under Section 161 as well as the subsequent statement which was recorded as a 'Majeed Bayan' by the Police. ... Referring the aforesaid, he submits that it has very clearly been held by the Apex Court that in case of any contradiction between the version of First Information Report and subsequent statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it can be taken as defence during trial but cannot ... He added that so far as the plea taken by the appellant that ....
Thus, in a case where a witness, in his statement under Section 164 CrPC, makes culpability of the accused beyond doubt but when he is put on the witness stand in the trial, he does a complete somersault, as the statement under Section 164 is not substantial evidence then what would be the position? ... As per the settled proposition of law, the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions. ... Statement be....
To prove the ‘Motive’ of the Accused, reliance is also placed on the statement of the Accused recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. ... However, Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that a statement under Section 164 CrPC could be used for both corroboration and contradiction. It could be used to corroborate the testimonies of other witnesses. In R. Shaji v. ... A statement under Section 164 CrPC is not subjected to the constra....
To prove the ‘Motive’ of the Accused, reliance is also placed on the statement of the Accused recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. ... However, Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that a statement under Section 164 CrPC could be used for both corroboration and contradiction. It could be used to corroborate the testimonies of other witnesses. In R. Shaji v. ... A statement under Section 164 CrPC is not subjected to the constra....
When a prosecution witness whose statement under Section 161 (1) or Section 164 of CrPC has been recorded states factual aspects before the Court which he has not stated in his prior statement recorded under Section 161 (1) or Section 164 of CrPC, it is said that there is an omission. ... In that event, it would be necessary to prove that he did, and if the former statement was reduced to writing, then Section 145 requires that his attention must be drawn to these parts which are to be....
Coming to the 164 statement, here the same is marked without objection and no contradiction put regarding the said statement, when PW2 was cross examined. Hence recall of PW2 for the said purpose cannot be allowed. As such no interference to Annexure-VI order is necessary. ... the manner provided by S.145 of the Evidence Act by drawing his attention to parts of the statement intended for contradiction. ... One is to contradict PW2 with her 164 statement#HL_E....
In her statement under Section 164 of CrPC (Ex. ... of the Evidence Act and it can be used only for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction. ... State of Madhya Pradesh, [AIR 1997 SC 940], has held that statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC can be used for corroboration or contradiction. 19. Similarly, in the matter of George and others v. ... Section 164 CrPC enables the recording of the statement or confession before the Magistrate. Is....
A statement recorded under Sec.164 can be used for corroboration and contradiction. That one statement, was the sexual molestation by two others, brought by the accused, which was denied by the victim. It has to be noticed that the defence did not confront the prosecutrix with any of the statements, but one.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of false implication due to old enmity. There are contradiction in the FIR and statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
The Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement given by Sathishkumar (D.W.-1) was marked as Ex.D.-3. A statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., can be used for corroboration and for contradiction unlike a statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.
At the time of recording a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. no opportunity is provided to cross examine the witness and as such it cannot be treated as substantive evidence. The object of recording a statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. is to deter the witness from changing a stand by denying the contents of her previously recorded statement and to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C. A statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for both corroboration and contradiction. It must be remembered that evidence given in the Court und....
In the present case, the victim is changing her version now and again. It is trite law that if the statement of the victim is reliable and trustworthy, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim. On the other hand, she has stated that Collector and Vinod administered her a tablet forcibly and forcibly poured water in her mouth, due to which she was intoxicated. The statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. is nothing more than a previous statement, which can be used for contradiction or corroboration.
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
