- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramesh Singh Bisht v. State Of Uttarakhand
Factual and Procedural Background
A criminal complaint case was filed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar on 23.12.2006 against Ramesh Singh Bisht, who was a juvenile in conflict with law, before the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar. The complaint was lodged under Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the ground that Ramesh Singh Bisht gave contradictory statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C) and before the trial court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Sections 191 and 193 of the IPC apply to a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C when no oath was administered to the deponent.
- Whether the complaint filed against the juvenile in conflict with law can be sustained based on the contradictory statements under Section 164 of Cr. P.C.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the applicability of Sections 191 and 193 of the IPC in the context of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. It noted that Section 191 IPC penalizes giving false evidence when a person is legally bound by oath or express provision of law to tell the truth. However, the statement of Ramesh Singh Bisht under Section 164 Cr. P.C was recorded without administering an oath, as Section 164(5) Cr. P.C only empowers the Magistrate to administer oath but does not mandate it. Consequently, Section 191 IPC does not apply, and hence Section 193 IPC, which punishes giving false evidence, is also not attracted.
The court further clarified that statements recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C or before the Investigating Officer cannot be treated as substantive evidence. Such statements may only be used, with court permission, to contradict the witness under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the complaint based solely on contradictory statements under Section 164 Cr. P.C was unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
The criminal appeal filed on behalf of Ramesh Singh Bisht, juvenile in conflict with law, is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2006 is set aside, and as a consequence, the complaint filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar is quashed.
This decision directly affects the parties by nullifying the complaint against the juvenile but does not establish any new legal precedent beyond the interpretation of Sections 191 and 193 IPC in the context of statements under Section 164 Cr. P.C.
1. A criminal complaint case was filed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar on 23.12.2006 against Ramesh Singh Bisht, who was a juvenile in conflict with law, before the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar. Said complaint was filed under Sections 191 and 193 of IPC.
2. The reason for filing the complaint against the juvenile in conflict with law was that he gave contrary statements under Section 164 of Cr. P.C and before the trial court.
3. Section 191 of IPC deals with ‘giving false evidence’ and Section 193 of IPC provides for punishment for false evidence. The opening sentence of Section 191 of IPC is ‘Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth ‘. A perusal of statement of Ramesh Singh Bisht under Section 164 of Cr. P.C will indicate that when the same was recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, oath was not administered to the deponent.
4. Section 164(5) of Cr. P.C empowers the Magistrate, who records statement under Section 164 of Cr. P.C, to administer oath to the person whose statement is about to be recorded. Section 191 of IPC is, therefore, not attracted, and, hence, there is no question of application of Section 193 of IPC in the present case.
5. Needless to say that the statement of witness (es) before the Investigating Officer or under Section 164 of Cr. P.C cannot be used as evidence. It may be used, with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution to contradict the witness concerned in the manner provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The impugned order dated 23.12.2006, therefore, cannot sustain.
6. Criminal appeal filed on behalf of Ramesh Singh Bisht, juvenile in conflict with law, is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.12.2006 is set aside and, as a consequence thereof, the complaint filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar is also quashed.
7. Appeal allowed.
Alert