In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has underscored the superior evidentiary value of a rape survivor's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before a Magistrate, as compared to a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC by an Investigating Officer (IO). This ruling emphasizes the sanctity and reliability attributed to statements made before a Magistrate during the investigative process.
Case Background
The case in question involved a criminal revision plea challenging the decision of the Judicial Magistrate in Saharanpur. The informant, herein referred to as the revisionist, had filed a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging that the accused, Taushif, had enticed away his 14-year-old daughter in January 2021 and subsequently committed rape. During the investigation, the victim provided a statement under Section 161 CrPC, asserting that she had been kidnapped and raped by the accused. She also mentioned being threatened and confined for four days. However, she declined to undergo a medico-legal examination. Later, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC before a Magistrate, the victim retracted her earlier allegations, stating that no wrongdoing had occurred and that her father had lodged a false case against the accused due to personal enmity. Based on this retraction and supporting affidavits from the victim's father and uncle, the police submitted a final report favoring the accused, which the Magistrate accepted, leading to the dismissal of the protest petition filed by the informant.
Legal Provisions: Sections 161 and 164 CrPC
To comprehend the court's ruling, it is essential to understand the distinctions between Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. Section 161 pertains to statements made to police officers during an investigation. These statements are not made under oath and are primarily used to aid the investigation. They are not admissible as substantive evidence in court but can be utilized to contradict the witness during cross-examination under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. In contrast, Section 164 deals with statements recorded by a Magistrate. Such statements are made under oath, with the Magistrate ensuring that the individual is making the statement voluntarily and understands its implications. Given the formal setting and the involvement of a judicial officer, statements under Section 164 carry greater evidentiary weight and are considered more reliable.
Court's Observations and Rationale
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, presiding over the case, emphasized that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC holds a higher pedestal due to the sanctity attached to it. The court noted that the victim had altered her narrative at different stages of the investigation. Initially, in her Section 161 statement to the police, she accused the defendant of kidnapping and rape. However, in her subsequent Section 164 statement before the Magistrate, she recanted these allegations, asserting that no offense had been committed and attributing the FIR to familial enmity. The court observed that no presumption could be drawn that the prosecutrix's statement recorded by the Magistrate suffered from falsehood or external pressure. The bench highlighted that the victim's refusal to undergo a medico-legal examination further complicated the evidentiary landscape. In light of these factors, the court upheld the Magistrate's decision to accept the final report favoring the accused, thereby dismissing the informant's protest petition.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment has significant implications for the criminal justice system, particularly in cases of sexual offenses. By affirming the primacy of Section 164 statements over those recorded under Section 161, the court reinforces the importance of statements made before a Magistrate. Such statements are considered more reliable due to the formal judicial environment in which they are recorded, the administration of an oath, and the Magistrate's duty to ensure voluntariness. This ruling may influence how investigating agencies and courts assess and prioritize evidence in future cases, especially when there are discrepancies between statements made at different stages of the investigation.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court's decision underscores the critical role of Section 164 CrPC statements in the criminal justice process. By placing these statements on a higher pedestal than those recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the court highlights the need for meticulous judicial oversight in the recording of statements, ensuring that they are made voluntarily and with full awareness of their implications. This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to upholding the integrity of the investigative and judicial processes, ensuring that justice is served based on reliable and credible evidence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.