Whether Statement recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. could be used as substantive evidence?

Statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence

In the case of Utpal Das & Anr. V. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 6 SCC 493 the Supreme Court has observed that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence. It can be used to contradict or corroborate a witness who has made the statement. The maker of such a statement may be cross-examined by using the statement made by him under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. to demonstrate that the evidence of the witness is false. The credibility of the prosecution witness can be impeached with the aid of the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The Court observed that it was for the defence to invite victim’s attention to what was said in the first information report and the statement made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of bringing out the contradictions. In the absence of the same, the Court cannot read the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and compare it with the evidence led in Court. A similar view has been taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Anjan Ganguly & Ors. V. State of West Bengal reported in (2014) 2 R.C.R.(Cri) 970. A Bench of six learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Tahsildar singh & Anr. V. State of U. P. reported in AIR 1959 SC 1012 has elucidated the manner in which a witness can be contradicted by confronting him with his previous statement. The Supreme Court has delineated the procedure which is required to be followed for this purpose. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajender Singh & Ors. V. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 4 SCC 298 regarding the manner in which the contradictions can be brought forth in the deposition of a witness and his previous statement. Even if the attention of this witness was not drawn to his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. where he had disclosed that his father was alive on 8th July, 2004 his deposition contains embellishments, other contradictions and discrepancies which makes his evidence susceptible to be discarded.

It was argued on behalf of the State by relying on judgment in the case of Mahavir Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 6 SCC 716 that all contradictions and discrepancies need not deter the Court from convicting the accused. It was submitted that once a chain of circumstances is found to be complete and no link is missing, the Court should convict the accused. This judgment does not aid the prosecution. The Supreme Court has observed if there are no material contradictions and the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete, the Court would take these factors into consideration while deciding whether to convict a person. However, the judgment has no application in the present case as we have seen that the chain of circumstances is not complete at all.

Refer: Calcutta High Court-Unknown vs The State Of West Bengal – 26/11/2014

CURRENT SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

Somesh Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr-22/07/21 - There are distinct doctrinal concepts in criminal law namely (i) the grant of bail before trial or, what is described as the 'pre-conviction' stage; (ii) setting aside an order granting bail when the principles which must weigh in the decision on whether bail should be granted have been overlooked or wrongly applied; (iii) the post- conviction suspension of sentence under the provisions of Section 389(1); and (iv) the cancellation of bail on the ground of supervening events, such as the conduct of the accused during the period of bail, vitiating the continuance of bail.
Union of India Vs. Rajendra N. Shah & Anr-20/07/21 - These appeals raise an important question as to the vires of the Constitution (Ninety Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 [the "Constitution 97th Amendment Act"] which inter alia introduced Part IXB under the chapter heading 'The Co-operative Societies'. The Constitution 97th Amendment Act was passed by the requisite majority of the Lok Sabha on 27.12.2011 and the Rajya Sabha on 28.12.2011.
K.P. Natarajan & Anr. Vs. Muthalammal & Ors-16/07/2021 - There is no dispute on facts and there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondents have been grossly negligent in defending the suit as well as the execution proceedings. But the fact remains that while the parties can afford to remain negligent, the Court cannot. The High Court has found, after summoning the records from the trial Court that as a matter of fact, the trial Court failed to appoint a guardian for the third respondent/minor in a manner prescribed by law.
Sachin Kashyap & Ors. Vs. Sushil Chandra Srivastava & Ors-15/07/2021 - Writ Petition having been filed for a particular cause and with a particular prayer cannot be expanded to cover within its ambit all the issues which may be of general or public importance without there being any pleadings or prayer with regard to a particular issue.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy-09/07/2021 - The American information technology sector has long been an engine of innovation and growth, but today a small number of dominant Internet platforms use their power to exclude market entrants, to extract monopoly profits, and to gather intimate personal information that they can exploit for their own advantage.
Blocking Property and Suspending Entry Into USA of Certain Persons Contributing to Destabilizing Situation in Western Balkans-EO-08/06/21 - All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State
Threat posed by military Industry of China- Biden Issued Executive Order-03/06/2021 - I find that the use of Chinese surveillance technology outside the PRC and the development or use of Chinese surveillance technology to facilitate repression or serious human rights abuse constitute unusual and extraordinary threats, which have their source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and I hereby expand the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13959 to address those threats.
Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity-EO 12/05/2021 - The United States faces persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns that threaten the public sector, the private sector, and ultimately the American people’s security and privacy. The Federal Government must improve its efforts to identify, deter, protect against, detect, and respond to these actions and actors. The Federal Government must also carefully examine what occurred during any major cyber incident and apply lessons learned. But cybersecurity requires more than government action.

Statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence

© Advocatetanmoy Law Library

Like this:

Related