S.164 CrPC Statement Recorded by Magistrate Cannot Be Withdrawn by Witness on Flimsy Grounds: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC cannot be easily withdrawn as greater credibility is associated with such statements as they are recorded by a judicial magistrate.

The bench consists of: Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma Heard the criminal appeal filed by the accused, who initially challenged their convictions on the basis of the withdrawn version of two prosecution witnesses who supported the prosecution’s case in their Section 164 Cr.PC statements. After the statements were recorded before the judge, the prosecution witnesses claimed that their statements were under threat and pressure from the Investigating Officer.

Upholding the conviction, the Court observed that once the statements are admitted by the witnesses, withdrawal of signed statements before the judicial magistrate is not permissible under Section 164 of Cr.PC. The court held that otherwise it would not make any difference between the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.PC and by the judge under Section 164 Cr.PC.

“Having said this, we think it is pertinent to observe that a statement under Section 164 CrPC cannot be quashed at the drop of a hat and on the statement of the witness that it has not been recorded correctly. Because the judicial satisfaction of the Magistrate that the statement recorded is the correct version of the facts stated by the witness, every such statement is a and a greater burden must be placed on the witness to recant the same statement.o Allowing a witness to retract a signed statement recorded before a Magistrate on weak grounds or mere allegations will effectively eliminate the difference between a statement recorded by a police officer and a statement recorded by a Magistrate. In the present case, there is no reasonable ground to reject the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the said statements have been properly relied upon by the courts below.”The court observed:

Justice Sharma, in the judgment, said that though no material value is attached to Section 164 Cr.PC statements, they can be used under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, 1872 for contradiction and corroboration of witness. Based on this contention, the Court was faulty in the appellants’ intention not to cross-examine the Investigating Officer (IO), against whom they alleged that the Section 164 statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under his (IO’s) threat.

“PW-3 and PW-4 deposed before the Magistrate that they were threatened by the concerned Investigating Officer who was present with them. The said Investigating Officer was examined as PW-8 in the present case and during his examination there was not even a suggestion from the appellants that he was present along with PW-3 and PW-4 at the time of recording. statements under Section 164 or that he threatened to make incriminating statements against the appellants themselves. Moreover, the said Magistrate could have been examined as a witness in the present case to clarify the dispute in this regard and for unexplained reasons, he was never called for examination, especially when a completely hostile statement was given by the witnesses during the trial. was executed before that. The appellants failed to bring on record any material to justify the allegation of threat and as discussed above, the statements of PW-3 and PW-4 recorded under Section 164 CrPC reflected the correct version of the events that took place on that fateful day.the court observed.

In addition, the Court found that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded by the judicial magistrate after a long interval of 25 days from the date of the incident, and rejected the possibility of withdrawal, thus eliminating the possibility of the statements being given in a hurry.

“In the present case, the statements of PW-3 and PW-4 were recorded by the Magistrate on 09.10.2003, that is, immediately after the incident. Therefore, their statements were recorded after a considerable period of time and cannot be termed hasty statements as there was sufficient cooling time for the witnesses to think and consider the consequences of their statements. During this entire period both PW-3 and PW-4 stayed with their families and it is not their case that they were kept under influence or educated during this period. Relatedly, PW-1 has also stated that on certain occasions, PW-3 accompanied the deceased Devaki to her mother’s house; this shows that PW-3 had a sense of attachment with the deceased and this could be the reason for granting the same. statement against his own brother and mother (the defendant).”, the court said.

Since the case was based on circumstantial evidence, no chain of events was refuted by the appellants, therefore the Court upheld the impugned judgments convicting the appellants.

“In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Trial Court and the High Court have correctly considered the evidence on record. We have not found any impropriety in the findings of the courts below and the impugned decision is sustainable in law. In the absence of a finding of illegality, perversion or impossibility of the findings in question, the consistent opinions of the two courts cannot be overruled by mere assumptions or guesses. Therefore, it has been decided to reject the current objection.”

Appearance:

Mr. Sachin Patil, Esq., for the Appellant(s). Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Esq. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Esq. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Esq. Mr. Sachin Singh, Esq. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR

Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Esq., for the respondent(s). Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Esq.

Case Title: VIJAYA SINGH & ANR. AGAINST THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2013

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 928

Click to read/download the decision