The Jurisprudence of Statements under Section 164 CrPC: Evidentiary Value, Procedural Mandates, and Judicial Interpretation in India

The Jurisprudence of Statements under Section 164 CrPC: Evidentiary Value, Procedural Mandates, and Judicial Interpretation in India

Introduction

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)[A] occupies a critical position in the Indian criminal justice system. It provides a mechanism for recording confessions and statements by a Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate during the course of an investigation or at any time afterwards but before the commencement of inquiry or trial. The provision aims to ensure that such statements are recorded in an atmosphere free from coercion and police influence, thereby lending them a degree of sanctity. However, the evidentiary value, procedural intricacies, and judicial interpretation of these statements have been subjects of extensive legal discourse. This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of Section 164 CrPC, delving into its statutory framework, the nature and purpose of statements recorded thereunder, the mandatory procedural safeguards, their evidentiary value in trial, and the nuances highlighted by various judicial pronouncements in India.

The Statutory Framework of Section 164 CrPC

Key Provisions

Section 164(1) CrPC empowers any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate, irrespective of jurisdiction over the case, to record any confession or statement made to him during an investigation or before the inquiry or trial commences.[8, 11] The provision explicitly states, "Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial."[8, quoting S.164(1)] This broad power is circumscribed by specific procedures. For confessions, sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 164 lay down stringent requirements, including informing the accused that they are not bound to make a confession and that if they do so, it may be used as evidence against them. The Magistrate must be satisfied that the confession is voluntary.[A] Statements other than confessions are also recorded under this section, but the procedural rigour, particularly regarding warnings, is primarily for confessions.[12]

The timing for recording such statements is crucial. As elucidated in Raja Ram v. State, a Magistrate may record a confession "at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial."[15] The inquiry under Chapter XVIII (now relevant parts concerning committal) commences when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence.[15]

Legislative Modifications and Scope

The applicability of Section 164 CrPC can be modified by special statutes. For instance, in Kartar Singh v. State Of Punjab, it was noted that Section 20(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) modified Section 164 CrPC to include Executive Magistrates or Special Executive Magistrates for recording confessions under that Act.[8] This illustrates the legislative intent to adapt the core principles of Section 164 to specific contexts while maintaining its fundamental character. The Calcutta High Court in K. Hoshide And Anr. Accused, v. Emperor Opposite Party, deliberated on whether an investigation by the Calcutta police fell under Chapter XIV of the (then) CrPC, which was a prerequisite for Section 164 to apply to statements made in the course of such an investigation.[9]

Section 164 is considered supplementary to Section 163 CrPC, which prohibits police officers or persons in authority from offering inducements, threats, or promises as mentioned in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and ensures that no one is prevented from making a voluntary statement.[17, citing Gama And Another v. State Of U.P]

Nature and Purpose of Statements under Section 164 CrPC

Distinction between Confessions and Other Statements

The CrPC, particularly Section 164, consciously distinguishes between "confessions" and "statements."[10] As observed in N.S.R Krishna Prasad And Another v. Directorate Of Enforcement, New Delhi And Other, "all confessions are statements, but all statements are not confessions."[10] This distinction is vital because the procedural safeguards, especially the warnings mandated by Section 164(2), are primarily directed towards the recording of confessions to ensure their voluntariness.[10] The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in this case, drew an analogy for statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, suggesting that if a confessional statement is recorded thereunder, similar warnings as per Section 164(2) CrPC should be administered.[10]

Evidentiary Status: Not Substantive Evidence

A cornerstone of the jurisprudence surrounding Section 164 CrPC is that statements recorded thereunder are not substantive evidence. This principle has been consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court and various High Courts. In the locus classicus, Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur And Another, the Supreme Court held that a statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilized only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-à-vis their statement made in court.[1, 18, 25] This position was reaffirmed in Baij Nath Sah v. State Of Bihar,[18] Mahendra Madansingh Thakur v. The State Of Maharashtra,[25] and State of U.P. v. Rajesh Kumar & Another.[26]

The Madras High Court in R. Palanisamy v. State By Inspector Of Police, likened a statement under Section 164 CrPC to a "previous statement" given during investigation under Section 161 CrPC, emphasizing that it is not substantive evidence because it is recorded in the absence of the accused (res inter alios acta).[12] Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in DR. SHIVAMURTHYMURUGHA SHARANARU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, citing the Supreme Court in Somasundaram @ Somu Vs. State, noted that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC does not possess a superior legal status to one recorded under Section 161(3) CrPC.[13]

Permissible Uses: Corroboration and Contradiction

While not substantive evidence, statements under Section 164 CrPC serve crucial evidentiary purposes. They can be used to corroborate the testimony of a witness under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or to contradict a witness under Section 145 of the same Act.[1, 7, 18, 23] The Supreme Court in R. Shaji v. State Of Kerala, referencing Jogendra Nahak, affirmed that statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC are admissible for corroboration and contradiction.[7] If a witness stands by their Section 164 statement during trial, it can be used for corroboration.[24, citing Dhanabal & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu]

Procedural Imperatives and Safeguards

Voluntariness and Judicial Warnings

The voluntariness of a confession is paramount. The Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab scrutinized the voluntariness and truthfulness of a confessional statement, highlighting procedural lapses such as insufficient time for contemplation and lack of corroboration.[3] Section 164(2) CrPC mandates that the Magistrate, before recording a confession, must explain to the person making it that they are not bound to do so and that if they do, it may be used as evidence against them. The Magistrate must not record the confession unless, upon questioning the person, they have reason to believe it is being made voluntarily.[A]

Manner of Recording

Section 164(4) CrPC stipulates that a confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in Section 281 CrPC for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession. The Magistrate is then required to make a memorandum at the foot of such record. Statements (other than confessions) are to be recorded in such manner prescribed for recording evidence as, in the Magistrate's opinion, is best fitted to the circumstances.[A, 11]

The Sikkim High Court in State Of Sikkim v. Suren Rai held that administering an oath to an accused before recording a confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC is an illegality, rendering the confession devoid of evidentiary value, as Section 313(2) CrPC (and by extension the principles for recording confessions) prohibits administering an oath to the accused.[14] Conversely, the Madras High Court in R. Palanisamy v. State By Inspector Of Police observed that Magistrates sometimes needlessly follow the elaborate procedure for confessions (like warnings) even when recording statements of witnesses under Section 164 CrPC, terming it a "needless exercise" not prescribed by the section for such statements, though it doesn't invalidate the statement.[12]

Locus Standi for Requesting Recording

The question of who can initiate the process of recording a statement under Section 164 CrPC has been clarified by the judiciary. In Jogendra Nahak And Others v. State Of Orissa And Others, the Supreme Court held that Section 164 CrPC is primarily intended for use within the framework of official investigations conducted by the police. A Magistrate cannot independently record statements from individuals not directly involved in the investigation at their own behest, as this could lead to misuse and overburden the courts.[5] This principle was applied in Mahabir Singh v. State Of Haryana, where a confession made by an accused who forcibly entered a courtroom to have his statement recorded was deemed inadmissible because it was not recorded in the course of an authorized investigation.[6] Similarly, the Allahabad High Court in Nafeesa v. State Of U.P. opined that a witness does not have an independent right to approach a Magistrate to record their statement under Section 164 CrPC when an investigation is ongoing.[20]

Judicial Scrutiny and Evidentiary Value in Trial

Statements of Witnesses Who Support the Prosecution

When a witness examined in court adheres to their previous statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, such a statement can be used to corroborate their testimony, thereby strengthening the prosecution's case.[24] However, it does not elevate the Section 164 statement to the status of substantive evidence; its role remains corroborative.[1]

Statements of Hostile or Resiling Witnesses

If a witness resiles from their Section 164 statement during trial or turns hostile, the statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence to base a conviction. In Mahendra Madansingh Thakur v. The State Of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court, relying on Ram Kishan Singh, held that once a witness does not support the prosecution, their Section 164 statement, even if proved, can never be accepted as substantive evidence.[25] The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Pacha Devendra Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh dealt with a situation where a witness resiled from his Section 164 statement; while this led to the acquittal of the accused in the main case, the court initiated perjury proceedings against the witness based on the contradictory statements.[22] This underscores that while the resiled statement loses its value for proving the main offence, it can have other legal consequences for the deponent.

Requirement of Confrontation for Contradiction

To use a Section 164 statement for contradicting a witness, the procedure laid down in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, must be followed. This typically involves drawing the witness's attention to the parts of the previous statement that are allegedly contradictory. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Singh @ Deputy & Ors… v. State… emphasized that failure to confront the witness with their Section 164 statement precludes its use for pointing out contradictions.[23]

The Role of the Recording Magistrate's Testimony

Generally, it is not necessary to examine the Magistrate who recorded the Section 164 statement if the record indicates due compliance with procedural requirements. The Madras High Court in Murugasamy v. State, endorsing the Privy Council's view in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, stated that calling the recording Magistrate as a witness is undesirable and improper unless there is an alleged infraction of Section 164 or Section 281 CrPC that needs clarification.[16]

Specific Contexts and Complexities

Statements under Special Enactments

As discussed with reference to Kartar Singh,[8] special laws can modify the application of Section 164 CrPC. In N.S.R Krishna Prasad And Another v. Directorate Of Enforcement, the court explored the interplay between Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (which empowers Customs officers to record statements) and Section 164 CrPC, particularly concerning confessional statements. It was suggested that if a statement recorded under Section 108 is confessional, the safeguards akin to Section 164(2) CrPC regarding warnings should ideally be followed, even though a Customs officer is not a Magistrate.[10]

Multiple or Retracted Statements

The issue of a witness wishing to make a second, contradictory statement under Section 164 CrPC arose in Nafeesa v. State Of U.P. The petitioner, having already given a statement supporting the FIR, later claimed it was false and sought to record another. The court was disinclined to permit this, highlighting the potential for abuse.[20] The evidentiary weight of such subsequent statements, if allowed, would be highly suspect.

Impact of Non-Consideration or Improper Recording

The non-consideration of a Section 164 statement by a trial court can be a ground for challenge in higher courts. In Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur And Another, the High Court had ordered a retrial partly because the Sessions Judge had allegedly not considered a statement made under Section 164 CrPC. While the Supreme Court ultimately set aside the High Court's order for retrial on the specific facts, the case underscores the expectation that such statements, for their limited corroborative or contradictory value, should be duly considered.[1, 21] Improper recording, such as administering an oath for a confession, can vitiate the statement.[14] The Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. State Of Rajasthan distinguished the purpose of Section 164 CrPC (procedure for recording statements) from Section 9 of the Evidence Act (relevancy of facts establishing identity), cautioning that if a statement recorded in derogation of Section 164 were admitted under Section 9, the object of Section 164 would be defeated.[11]

The evidentiary value of statements by victims, especially in sensitive cases like those under Section 376 IPC, recorded under Section 164 CrPC, is often significant. Such a statement was noted in Sonu Alias Subhash Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another (S), forming part of the material considered by the courts.[19]

Conclusion

Statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC are a vital tool in the criminal investigation and trial process in India. They serve as an early, formally recorded account of a witness's knowledge or an accused's confession, captured under the supervision of a Magistrate to minimize undue influence. The judiciary has consistently maintained that these statements, while valuable, do not constitute substantive evidence. Their utility is confined to corroborating or contradicting the deponent's testimony in court. Strict adherence to procedural safeguards, particularly for confessions, is mandatory to ensure voluntariness and reliability. The jurisprudence evolved through numerous judicial pronouncements underscores a careful balancing act: leveraging these statements for effective justice delivery while rigorously protecting the rights of the accused and preventing misuse of the provision. The continued vigilance of the courts in interpreting and applying Section 164 CrPC remains essential for upholding the principles of fair trial and the integrity of the criminal justice system.

References