Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from the Allahabad High Court's confirmation of convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants, Ram Charan, Dularey, and Ram Bux, were convicted for murder. The prosecution relied on eye-witnesses whose statements had been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, prior to trial. Each statement bore an endorsement that the deponent had been warned that it might be used against him. The defence contended that this procedure rendered the witnesses' court testimony suspect and entitled to little weight. The Supreme Court examined the effect of such recording on the evidentiary value of the testimony. After considering precedents from various High Courts, the Court held that the mere fact that a statement was recorded under Section 164 does not make the witness's evidence in court either suspect or less believable, provided the witness adheres to the same version. The endorsement warning the witness does not amount to a threat; the only reasonable inference is that the police thought the witness might change his statement at trial. However, the court must receive such evidence with caution. The Court approved the views expressed in Parmanand v. Emperor and Gopisetti Chinna Venkatasubbiah, and disapproved the contrary view in Emperor v. Manu Chik. On the facts, the appeal was dismissed and the convictions upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law — Evidence — Admissibility and Weight of Section 164 CrPC Statement — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 164 — Statements of eye-witnesses in murder case recorded under Section 164 with warning that statement might be used against them — Held, mere fact of such recording does not make subsequent court evidence suspect or less believable if witness adheres to same version — Endorsement does not prove threat; only inference is police anticipated possible change in testimony — Court must receive evidence with caution but no automatic rejection — Observations in Parmanand v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Nag 340 and In re Gopisetti Chinna Venkatasubbiah, ILR [1955] AP 633 approved; Emperor v. Manu Chik, AIR 1938 Patna 290 disapproved (Paras SCR page 357 G, 358 D)
Issue of Consideration
What weight should be attached to the evidence of a witness whose statement was previously recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly when the witness in court sticks to that version?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the convictions and sentences. It held that the mere fact that a witness's statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC does not make his court evidence suspect or less believable, particularly if the witness sticks to the same version. The endorsement warning does not imply a threat; the only inference is that the police anticipated the witness might change his statement. However, the court must receive such evidence with caution. The Court approved the observations in Parmanand v. Emperor and Gopisetti Chinna Venkatasubbiah, and disapproved the contrary view in Emperor v. Manu Chik.
Law Points
- Weight of evidence recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1898
- mere recording of statement under Section 164 does not render evidence suspect
- endorsement warning witness does not imply threat
- court must exercise caution but is not bound to discard testimony
