Statements Under S.161 & S.164 Cr.P.C. Are Not Substantive Evidence to Convict When Witness Turns Hostile: Madras High Court - 2025-08-26

Madras High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Rules Statements to Police and Magistrate Cannot Be Sole Basis for Conviction

Chennai, India – In a significant ruling clarifying the evidentiary value of prior statements, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has acquitted a man convicted of kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The Division Bench, comprising Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira and Justice R. Poornima , held that statements recorded by the police (under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) and a magistrate (under Section 164 Cr.P.C.) are not substantive pieces of evidence and cannot form the basis of a conviction, especially when the primary witness—the victim—turns hostile in court.

The Court set aside the trial court's judgment, which had sentenced the appellant, Palraj, to life imprisonment. In a stern rebuke, the High Court also directed the trial judge to undergo training at the State Judicial Academy for convicting the accused based on "wholly inadmissible evidence."

Case Background

The case originated from a "girl missing" complaint filed on May 1, 2022, by the victim's father. The victim, a 10th-grade student, returned home several months later. The police investigation led to the arrest of the appellant, Palraj, who was charged under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (kidnapping) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

The Special POCSO Court in Dindigul convicted Palraj, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping and life imprisonment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, with sentences to run concurrently. The conviction was primarily based on the initial statements the victim gave to the police and a doctor, as well as her statement recorded before a magistrate.

Key Arguments in the High Court

The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court's conviction was fundamentally flawed for several reasons:

* Hostile Witnesses: The victim (P.W.2) did not support the prosecution's case during the trial. She denied knowing the appellant, being abducted, or being sexually assaulted. She claimed her earlier statements were made under her father's instructions. Crucially, other key prosecution witnesses also turned hostile.

* Failure to Prove Victim's Age: The prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, as the school certificate presented did not meet the standards prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Act.

* Improper Reliance on Inadmissible Evidence: The primary contention was that the trial court erroneously treated the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. as substantive evidence, which is contrary to established legal principles.

The Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that while the victim had turned hostile, the trial court had relied on her initial statements and the medical evidence. However, he fairly admitted that these statements could not be treated as substantive evidence for conviction.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Division Bench meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal precedents, highlighting a "grave error and illegality" committed by the trial court.

The Court unequivocally stated that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and can only be used for the limited purpose of contradicting a witness under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judges cited the Supreme Court's decision in Renuka Prasad vs. The State (2025 INSC 657) , which reinforced that such statements are "wholly inadmissible" as proof of the facts stated therein.

Similarly, the Court, referencing Siva vs. The State (2022 (4) MLJ (Crl) 113) , reiterated that a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is also not substantive evidence and can only be used to corroborate or contradict a witness's testimony in court.

"When the foundational facts had not been proved by the prosecution the trial Court erred in invoking presumption as under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act," the judgment noted. "The trial Court without understanding the fundamental principle of criminal law had convicted the appellant and thereby had committed a grave error and illegality."

Finding a complete lack of legal evidence to sustain the conviction, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Special POCSO Court. Palraj was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately. The Court also quashed the compensation awarded to the victim, stating she was not entitled to it since she denied the assault, and directed the government to recover any amount already paid.

In an unusual move reflecting the gravity of the trial court's error, the Bench directed its Registry to communicate the order to the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to ensure the concerned trial judge attends training programs at the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to "understand the fundamental principles of criminal law."