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…!
Differences between initial and subsequent statements: Contradictions or discrepancies between multiple Section 164 statements are permissible and subject to judicial assessment; such statements are not automatically discarded but evaluated for consistency ["P.PANNERSELVAM Vs STATE REP BY - Madras"], ["Nafeesa v. State of U. P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others - Allahabad"].
Recording of Section 164 Statements - Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["XXX VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"]- ["P.PANNERSELVAM Vs STATE REP BY - Madras"]- ["State of Madras represented by the Public Prosecutor Madras v. G. Krishnan - Madras"]- ["GUDIA DEVI vs UT OF J AND K TH SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAJOURI AND ANOTHER - Jammu and Kashmir"]- ["Musst Anjuma Bibi, W/o. Late. Sanowar Ali VS State Of Assam, Represented By PP, Assam - Gauhati"]- ["Nafeesa v. State of U. P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others - Allahabad"]
In criminal investigations across India, Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) plays a pivotal role. It allows magistrates to record statements of witnesses or confessions, lending them significant evidentiary value due to their sworn nature. But what happens when circumstances demand clarity or new details emerge? A common query arises: whether sec 164 statement be recorded twice? This question often surfaces in high-stakes cases involving POCSO, murder, or other serious offenses.
This blog post delves into the legal framework, judicial interpretations, and practical considerations surrounding multiple recordings of Section 164 statements. While the law provides flexibility, it imposes strict safeguards to prevent misuse. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 164 CrPC does not explicitly prohibit recording a witness's statement more than once. Courts have consistently held that multiple recordings are permissible under certain circumstances, provided they align with investigative needs and legal safeguards. The primary goal is to aid in uncovering the truth during a fair investigation. MANISHA SAHU VS STATE OF U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 468
As emphasized in key rulings, law does not bar recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. twice, but at the same time the second statement should not be recorded to negate or defeat the earlier statement of the victim whether it is in favour or against the accused. MANISHA SAHU VS STATE OF U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 468 This principle underscores caution: the initial statement carries high evidentiary sanctity, and subsequent ones must be justified. Parul Yadav VS State - 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1640
Similarly, there is no bar for making request for recording subsequent statement of victim under Section 164 of Code, however, the final decision would be of Magistrate on the basis of any subsequent event or evidence or otherwise, which ought to be relevant circumstance for fair investigation. Ajay Diwakar VS State Of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 761
Indian courts have addressed this issue in various contexts, particularly in sensitive cases like those under the POCSO Act. For instance, in one case, the victim's Section 164 statement was recorded twice, revealing material contradictions between them. The court scrutinized these discrepancies but did not outright invalidate the process, highlighting the need for careful comparison. P.PANNERSELVAM Vs STATE REP BY
Judgments stress that re-recording is acceptable to clarify ambiguities, supplement details when new facts emerge, or address initial statements potentially influenced by duress. However, it must not be a tool to manipulate evidence. The law permits recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. more than once, but the second statement should be recorded carefully, and not to negate or defeat the earlier statement unless justified. Parul Yadav VS State - 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1640
In another ruling, the court noted that statements under Section 164 can corroborate witnesses under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or contradict under Section 155, reinforcing their utility even if recorded multiply. State of Gujarat VS Bilal Ismail Abdul Majid Sujela @ Bilal Haji - 2017 Supreme(Guj) 1723
Any re-recording must strictly follow Section 164(5) CrPC and judicial guidelines:- Voluntariness: The magistrate must ensure the statement is given freely, without coercion.- Rights Explanation: Witnesses must be informed of the statement's implications, pros, cons, and its potential use in court.- Magistrate's Discretion: Magistrates have discretion to refuse if the request seems motivated by improper intent, such as creating bail difficulties or interfering with the investigation. They must assess circumstances judiciously. Mohd. Manir VS State Of Bihar - 1994 Supreme(Pat) 302
Failure to adhere can undermine credibility. For example, statements not recorded per Sections 164 and 364 CrPC were deemed inadmissible. Proper procedure preserves evidentiary value. Queen-Empress VS Bhairab Chunder Chuckerbutty - 1898 Supreme(Cal) 34
While permissible, multiple recordings carry risks:- Unjustified Contradictions: Recording solely to alter or negate the first without valid reasons is problematic and may be seen as influenced. MANISHA SAHU VS STATE OF U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 468Parul Yadav VS State - 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1640- Evidentiary Scrutiny: Courts closely examine circumstances. Contradictory versions in repeated statements can erode reliability, as seen where a witness's statements under Section 161 CrPC (related context) varied significantly. STATE OF M. P. VS SANT RAVINDRA DAS GURU SWAROOPANAND - 2005 Supreme(MP) 1105- Not Substantive Evidence Alone: Subsequent statements should be corroborated; reliance solely on them to prove guilt or innocence is risky. Tuku @ Abdul Naim Khan VS State Of Odisha - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 72
In cases of contradictions, like those in POCSO matters, courts compare statements rigorously. P.PANNERSELVAM Vs STATE REP BY
Common scenarios include:- Emergence of new evidence or events post-initial recording. Ajay Diwakar VS State Of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 761- Need to refresh or clarify memory, especially if the first was when facts were fresh. Statements under Section 164 can refresh memory under Evidence Act Sections 159-160, unlike Section 162. State VS Kesar Singh - 1954 Supreme(Raj) 135- Victim or witness requests for correction, provided motives are genuine and procedure followed.
Magistrates must document reasons, ensuring no undue influence. Sivakumar VS State by The Inspector of Police - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 2585
Proper documentation enhances value, while lapses invite challenges. Pramod Radhakisan Thakre VS State of Maharashtra
In conclusion, while Section 164 CrPC offers flexibility for multiple recordings to serve justice, it demands unwavering adherence to fairness. This balance protects investigations without compromising rights. For case-specific guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References (Key Document IDs): MANISHA SAHU VS STATE OF U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 468Ajay Diwakar VS State Of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 761Parul Yadav VS State - 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1640Sivakumar VS State by The Inspector of Police - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 2585Tuku @ Abdul Naim Khan VS State Of Odisha - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 72P.PANNERSELVAM Vs STATE REP BYState VS Kesar Singh - 1954 Supreme(Raj) 135
#Section164CrPC, #LegalInsights, #CrPCStatements
State of Kerala and another, [(1998) 4 SCC 605], their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the issue as to whether the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC constitutes substantial evidence and held that a statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 CrPC ... The short question for consideration is, whether the Special Judge is justified in convicting the appellant on the basis of the oral testimonies of victim's mother (P.W.-2) a....
The 164 statement of the victim girl has been recorded twice. On the comparison of those two 164 statements, this Court finds some material contradictions between the present 164 statement and the already recorded 164 statement. ... 2.For the alleged offence took place in the year 2017, this petitioner has been arrested on 13.01.2022 for the offence under Section 3, 4, 16 & 17 of POCSO Act....
... The question, as formulated, has to be considered in its two aspects, namely, (1) whether a statement recorded under S.164 CrPC could be held to be a public document falling under S.74(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, and if so, whether a person, against whom no charge - sheet bad yet been filed, could ... S.164 CrPC confers a power on Magistrates specified in Sub-Sec. (1) thereto to record any statement or confession made to them in the course of ....
They were recorded, not as confessions under sec. 164, Cr. ... Such confessions could then have been recorded with the declaration prescribed by sec. 164. ... I do not think the statement is a statement within the meaning of sec. 164; I think 'statement' there means the statement of a witness, as opposed to the confession of the accused. The method, prescribed for recording such ....
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 ... The petitioner moved application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - I, Sitapur for recording her statement a second time under S.164 ....
As no copy of the statement of Jumekhan recorded under sec. 164 was traced on the record, it cannot be said that when such statement was recorded, and whether it was recorded when the memory of the witness was fresh or otherwise. ... It is, therefore, not clear whether the prosecution wanted to put a statement recorded under sec. 162 or under sec. 164#....
The Magistrate who recorded the statement was also not examined to prove the statement of P.W.3 and P.W.6 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 49. ... P.W.3 and P.W.6 also supported the fact while their statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the respondent nos. 2 & 3 should have been convicted by the trial Court. ... As the learned counsel....
The question of law in this case involves a very point as to (1) whether statement under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C. can be recorded by a Magistrate on a direct request from the witness concerned, (2) whether the Magistrate is bound to do it or has got a discretion in the matter, (3) whether such statement is ... Practically, Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. and that of Sec. 164 Cr. P.C. stand almost on the same footing i....
Another question relates to effect of statement of witnesses recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. ... He recorded statements of witnesses. Muddemal was handed over to C.A. He recorded statement of Vasant Gite. He arranged recording of statement of Gite before Magistrate under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. He submitted charge-sheet. The statement of Kishor Gurav was recorded under S....
The question whether statement of a witness under Section 164 CrPC can be recorded more than once has been dealt with by this Court in the case of “Showkat Ali Vs. State and Ors.” (561-A No. 259/2014 decided on 04.09.2014). ... So far as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 is concerned, the object is two fold; in the first place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded #HL_STAR....
A statement recorded by a Magistrate under Sec. 164 becomes usable to corroborate the witnesses as provided in Sec.157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him as provided in Sec.155 thereof. 16 State of Maharashtra Damu S/o Gopinath Shide (2000) 6 SCC 269 [17 to 25, 42 to 46] 14 Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar 2002 SCC (Cri) 1220 15 Ramprasad v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 5 SCC 30 [para-15]
On both the days, his statement was recorded under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. He was produced before P.W.11, the Judicial Magistrate, on 30.8.2007 and 31.8.2007. Following the said confessional statement, A-1 and A-2 were arrested on 4.9.2007.
He has further admitted in his statement that Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/4) was got recorded by him. His statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded twice. He has admitted that both of his statements were recorded correctly, but the version in both the statements is different.
The Magistrate who had recorded the statement was not examined as a witness and the statement recorded under Sec. 164, CrPC was therefore, not an exhibit in the trial. 22. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Bhaskar Kumar was not examined by the police. The statement under Sec. 164, CrPC though lying on the record in the material sense was not legally a part of the record and the legal position was that Bhaskar Kumar was making his deposition before the Court for the first time after about eleven months of the occurrence. His statement under Sec. 164, Cr. P.C. was reco....
His statement was also recorded under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C. Sessions Judge, said statement of Niranjan Mohapatra was ex-culpatory and on scrutinising the evidence on record, learned Addl. 2. The accused Niranjan Mohapatra, was the brother of the deceased Namita, and was made an accomplice in the aforesaid case.
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
