Introduction

The judgment in Abbas And Another v. State Of U.P. And Another delivered on 27 January 2025 by the Allahabad High Court establishes a significant legal precedent regarding the treatment of evidentiary statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The case involves a complex criminal revision where the plaintiff, acting both as the informant and the prosecutrix (victim), challenged the acceptance of the closure report submitted by the police following an investigation into serious charges under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as provisions under the POCSO Act.

The background of the case revolves around the allegations made by Abbas, the father of a minor victim, that his daughter was abducted and raped by several accused persons. During the investigation, two statements recorded at different stages – one under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer and another under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before a Judicial Magistrate – show stark differences. The victim’s later protest petition against the closure report brought into focus the credibility attributed to these competing recorded statements.

Summary of the Judgment

The Allahabad High Court, after an exhaustive review of the procedural history and related evidentiary submissions, dismissed the criminal revision preferred by the informant/prosecutrix. The court upheld the trial Magistrate’s earlier decision to accept the closure report filed by the police – a report that was primarily influenced by the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and corroborated by affidavits of the victim’s father and uncle.

The court observed that the recorded statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. holds a higher degree of judicial sanctity compared to the preliminary statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., particularly given that the victim had modified her version during the course of investigation. The decision underscored that, even though the victim later expressed dissatisfaction and alleged external pressure, no irregularity or illegality was identified in relying on the judicial record established under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively refers to earlier case law to justify the approach adopted by the trial Magistrate, including:

• Pakhandu v. State of U.P. – This case provided guidelines on the measures available to a Magistrate when faced with a closure report by the police. It outlined the four courses of action under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C., emphasizing that a Magistrate is not compelled to accept the investigating officer’s conclusions.
• Mohabbat Ali v. State of U.P. – The reasoning in this earlier judgment was invoked to support the exercise of judicial discretion in investigating and evaluating evidentiary submissions.
• Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Misra and H.S. Bains v. State – These decisions reinforced the principle that a Magistrate’s independent inquiry into evidence is paramount. The court reiterated that the credibility of witnesses should be independently assessed rather than being bound by the police report’s conclusions.
• Tularam v. Kishore Singh – This decision reinforced the idea that even if the police report suggests a lack of sufficient evidence, the Magistrate can take cognizance upon an alternative analysis of facts, supporting the rationale behind accepting the Section 164 statement.

These precedents played a crucial role in shaping the High Court's analysis by affirming that the Magistrate was within his judicial discretion to rely on the evidence as recorded in the more formal and more reliable process under Section 164.

Legal Reasoning

The core judicial reasoning in the judgment hinges on the sanctity of the judicial process involved in recording a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Court observed:

• Elevated Status of Section 164 Statements: The court asserted that statements recorded under Section 164 carry added judicial reliability since they are made before a Judicial Magistrate. Such records are given a higher level of credibility than those recorded under Section 161 by investigating officers.
• Consistency and Credibility Issues: Although the victim’s initial statement (Section 161) indicated a detailed account of the events, her later version under Section 164 which exonerated the accused was accorded more weight due to the formal judicial setting and procedural safeguards in place.
• Discretion of the Magistrate: Relying on the established precedents, the Court noted that a Magistrate, when presented with a closure report that dismisses further proceedings, is empowered to accept the findings if the evidentiary basis—including the statements of the victim and supporting affidavits—appears reliable.
• No Imputed Illegality: Despite allegations of external pressure on the victim, the High Court found that there was no inherent irregularity in the trial Magistrate’s acceptance of the closure report. The consistency in approach compared to earlier decisions further validated this acceptance.

Impact on Future Cases

This judgment is poised to have a far-reaching impact on criminal revisions and investigations:

• Prioritization of Judicially Recorded Evidence: The decision reinforces the importance of Section 164 recorded statements, potentially influencing lower courts to give them overriding weight over preliminary investigations recorded under Section 161.
• Empowerment of Magistrates: The judgment clarifies that Magistrates have the discretionary power to disregard a police report’s conclusions if they deem the material recorded judicially as more reliable. This could lead to a broader application of this principle in criminal law.
• Guidance on Inconsistent Witness Statements: Future cases where a witness alters her stance may be evaluated more favorably if the altered version is recorded under the formal procedure of Section 164, thereby fortifying the evidence-handling process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To facilitate better understanding, the following legal concepts are clarified:

• Section 161 vs Section 164 Cr.P.C.: Section 161 involves statements recorded by police officers at an early stage of investigation, which are often preliminary and may be subject to later modification. In contrast, Section 164 involves statements recorded by a Judicial Magistrate in a formal setting. The latter is given more deference due to its judicial quality and procedural rigor.
• Closure Report Acceptance: A closure report is submitted by the police after concluding their investigation. The Magistrate, however, is not obliged to accept it if he finds there is sufficient evidence contrary to the police’s conclusions, based on his independent assessment of the evidence.
• Cognizance Under Section 190: This provision allows a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offense either based on a complaint, a police report, or other information. In this context, even if the police report indicates no prima facie case, the Magistrate can still initiate proceedings if the facts suggest an offense was committed.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s decision in this criminal revision not only reinforces the established judicial discretion in accepting or rejecting police conclusions but also distinctly elevates the evidentiary weight of Section 164 recorded statements. The judgment underlines that even when there is inconsistency in a witness’s testimony, the formal recording before a Judicial Magistrate carries significant judicial sanctity.

This precedent offers clarity for future cases, guiding courts to balance early investigative statements against those recorded in a robust judicial setting. Moreover, it underscores the essential principle that the integrity of the criminal justice process is best maintained when evidence is evaluated in its most reliable and formally recorded form.

In summary, the ruling provides a critical framework for judicial decision-making during criminal revisions and may well influence how future investigations and evidentiary submissions are handled, ensuring that decisions are rooted in fairness, judicial process, and the adherence to procedural safeguards.