AI Overview...

Conviction on Basis of Section 164 CrPC: What Supreme Court Says

In criminal trials across India, statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) often play a pivotal role. But can a conviction be based solely on such a statement? This question frequently arises, especially when witnesses turn hostile or evidence is thin. The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified the evidentiary value of Section 164 statements, emphasizing they are not substantive evidence but tools for corroboration or contradiction. This blog dives into key rulings, helping you understand the legal position.

Note: This is general information based on Supreme Court precedents. Legal outcomes depend on case specifics. Consult a lawyer for advice.

What is Section 164 CrPC?

Section 164 CrPC empowers magistrates to record statements and confessions during police investigations. These include:
- Witness statements: To preserve early accounts.
- Confessions: From accused persons, with safeguards like cautioning about rights and voluntariness.

The provision aims to prevent tampering but doesn't make these statements a shortcut to conviction. As the Supreme Court notes, confessions recorded under Section 164 can only be proved by the record itself, and oral evidence of such confessions is inadmissible. State Of U. P. VS Singhara Singh - 1963 Supreme(SC) 200

Evidentiary Value: Not Substantive Evidence

A core principle from Supreme Court judgments is that Section 164 statements are not substantive evidence. They cannot independently sustain a conviction. Instead:
- Used to corroborate (support) court testimony under Section 157 of the Evidence Act.
- To contradict witnesses under Section 145 if they turn hostile.

In one landmark view: Section 157 of Evidence Act makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC can be relied upon for purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses. XXX VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 474

Key Supreme Court Rulings on Sole Reliance

The apex court has quashed convictions resting purely on Section 164 statements, especially without corroboration:

• 
  

  No Conviction on Sole 164 Statement: Statement of victim under Section 164 of CrPC is only piece of evidence, on basis of which, conviction of appellant for offences has been recorded... no conviction can be based and recorded, on basis of that statement. The court set aside the conviction, acquitting the accused. XXX VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 474

  
  


• 
  

  Hostile Witnesses: When prosecutrix and witnesses falter, 164 statements alone fail. The court emphasized that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not substantive evidence and can only be used for corroboration. Acquittal followed due to inconsistencies. Subha Dey VS State Of West Bengal - 2022 Supreme(Cal) 492

  
  


• 
  

  Confession Admissibility: Confessions must follow strict procedure. A confession recorded during investigation without following the procedure laid down in Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code is inadmissible. Benefit of doubt granted. STATE VS LOBSANG SHARAP - 1972 Supreme(HP) 25

  
  


• 
  

  Rape Cases: In POCSO matters, conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of the victim without corroboration. 164 statements need medical or other support. HANIF ALI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 565

  
  

These rulings underscore: Suspicion cannot substitute proof. Courts must scrutinize voluntariness, especially for confessions.

When Can 164 Statements Support Conviction?

While not standalone, they bolster cases with:

1. Corroborative Evidence

• Medical reports, recoveries, or eyewitnesses.


• Example: In murder trials, 164 confession corroborated by recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act upheld conviction. Chandrakant Digambar Tanksale VS State of Maharashtra - 2010 Supreme(Bom) 637

2. Reliable Court Testimony

• If witness affirms 164 statement in chief examination, it corroborates.


• The statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be used to corroborate the prosecution case. Ajoy Pramanick VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2010 Supreme(Cal) 392

3. Retracted Confessions

• Rare, but voluntary confessions with corroboration can suffice. However, courts prefer caution: The voluntary and truthful nature of a confessional statement... its compliance with procedural requirements. Chandrakant Digambar Tanksale VS State of Maharashtra - 2010 Supreme(Bom) 637

| Scenario | Can Base Conviction? | Supreme Court View |
|----------|----------------------|---------------------|
| Sole 164 Statement | No | Not substantive XXX VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 474 |
| With Corroboration | Yes | For support Ajoy Pramanick VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2010 Supreme(Cal) 392 |
| Hostile Witness Only | No | Contradiction tool Subha Dey VS State Of West Bengal - 2022 Supreme(Cal) 492 |
| Irregular Recording | Inadmissible | Procedure mandatory STATE VS LOBSANG SHARAP - 1972 Supreme(HP) 25 |

Common Pitfalls in Trials

• 
  

  Trial Courts Err: Often treat 164 as direct evidence. It is quite clear that the Sessions Judge did not understand the concept of Section 164 of CrPC... Conviction cannot be based on hearsay evidence. Shaikh Mahemood Sk. Osman VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 697

  
  


• 
  

  Victim Statements in Sexual Offences: The conviction under Section 376 was set aside due to lack of substantive evidence, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence. Firdus Ali @ Rashidul Islam S/o Abdul Khaleque Sk vs State Of Assam - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 137

  
  


• 
  

  Per Incuriam Directions: Even higher courts correct misuse, as in transfers affecting trials. A. R. Antulay VS R. S. Nayak - 1988 Supreme(SC) 337

  
  

Supreme Court warns against mini-trials at summoning stage but insists on proof beyond doubt at conviction. Rajesh Yadav VS State of U. P. - 2016 Supreme(All) 2777

Broader Context: Confessions and Safeguards

Section 164 mandates:
1. Explaining rights to accused.
2. Caution against false confession.
3. Recording in first person.
4. Magistrate certification of voluntariness.

Non-compliance renders it worthless. The power to record the confession had obviously been given so that the confession might be proved by the record of it made in the manner laid down. Faisal Ashraf VS State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 1553

In dying declarations or related contexts, limits apply: Not all 164 statements qualify under Evidence Act Section 32. Shaikh Mahemood Sk. Osman VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 697

Key Takeaways for Lawyers and Litigants

• Prosecution: Always corroborate 164 statements. Rely on plenary evidence.


• Defense: Challenge voluntariness, highlight lack of substance.


• Courts: Re-appreciate evidence in appeals; acquit on doubt.

The Supreme Court balances efficiency with justice: No man should suffer because of the mistake of the Court. A. R. Antulay VS R. S. Nayak - 1988 Supreme(SC) 337

In sum, conviction on basis of 164 CrPC alone is impermissible. It laid down by Supreme Court that these are auxiliary, demanding robust proof for guilt.

Disclaimer

This post summarizes judgments for educational purposes. Laws evolve; outcomes vary. Seek professional legal counsel for your matter. Not legal advice.