Section 164 CrPC Statement Can’t Be Discarded On A Mere Witness Statement That It Wasn’t Recorded Correctly: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be discarded at the drop of a hat on a mere statement of the witness that it was not recorded correctly.
The Court upheld the life sentence imposed on the husband and the mother-in-law (Appellants) for the murder of the wife while dismissing their Appeals against the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Bench upheld the decisions of the Trial Court and the Uttarakhand High Court, which had found the Appellants guilty based on circumstantial evidence.
The Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “A statement under Section 164 CrPC cannot be discarded at the drop of a hat and on a mere statement of the witness that it was not recorded correctly. For, a judicial satisfaction of the Magistrate, to the effect that the statement being recorded is the correct version of the facts stated by the witness, forms part of every such statement and a higher burden must be placed upon the witness to retract from the same. To permit retraction by a witness from a signed statement recorded before the Magistrate on flimsy grounds or on mere assertions would effectively negate the difference between a statement recorded by the police officer and that recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.”
Advocate Sachin Patil represented the Appellants, while AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat appeared for the Respondent.
The deceased was found dead due to 100% burn injuries at her matrimonial home. The FIR, lodged by her brother alleged that the deceased’s in-laws murdered her after subjecting her to harassment and cruelty. The Trial Court convicted the Appellants sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the convictions, prompting the appellants to file the present appeal.
The Supreme Court noted that the statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC in the aftermath of the incident. However, the issue with respect to their evidence was that they sought to retract their statements and denied a material part of their statements before the Sessions Court.
The Court stated that the weight to be attached to a statement (reliability thereof) must be determined by the Court on a case-to-case basis and the same would depend to some extent upon whether the witness remained true to the statement or resiled from it, but it would not be a conclusive factor.
“For, even if a witness has retracted from a statement, such retraction could be a result of manipulation and the Court has to examine the circumstances in which the statement was recorded, the reasons stated by the witness for retracting from the statement etc. Ultimately, what counts is whether the Court believes a statement to be true, and the ultimate test of reliability happens during the trial upon a calculated balancing of conflicting versions in light of the other evidence on record,” the Bench remarked.
“A statement under Section 164 CrPC is not subjected to the constraints attached with a statement under Section 161 CrPC and the vigour of Section 162 CrPC does not apply to a statement under Section 164 CrPC. Therefore, it must be considered on a better footing,” the Bench explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “In the present matter, there is no reasonable ground to reject the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and reliance has correctly been placed upon the said statements by the courts below.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State Of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 905)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Sachin Patil, Satyajit A Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar and Sachin Singh; AOR Anagha S. Desai
Respondent: AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat; Advocates Saakshi Singh Rawat and Rachna Gandhi
