Case Note & Summary
The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed by the accused in a POCSO case seeking redaction of a portion of the deposition of PW-1 recorded on 1 July 2024, alleging that the witness had indirectly referred to her prior statement under Section 164(5) CrPC, which could not be used as substantive evidence. The case originated from a crime registered for offences under the IPC, POCSO Act, and other statutes. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and charges were framed on 31 May 2024. During trial, CW-2 was examined as PW-1. The trial court had earlier on 21 June 2024 ruled that the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC could not be marked as an exhibit in examination-in-chief and could only be used for contradiction or corroboration in cross-examination. However, during further examination on 1 July 2024, the witness spoke about what she had stated before the Magistrate while giving her Section 164 statement. The accused contended this was an indirect method of marking the statement, which is impermissible in law and would cause prejudice. The prosecution argued that the witness’s reference did not amount to marking and that the petition was a tactic to delay the trial. The High Court considered the narrow issue whether the deposition of 1 July 2024 was in accordance with law. It noted the settled position that a statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot be treated as such; it can only be used for contradiction or corroboration under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. The court observed that the witness had merely referred to her prior statement without its contents being formally reproduced or marked. Hence, there was no violation of the trial court’s earlier order or the legal bar. Accordingly, the court dismissed the criminal petition, holding that the deposition did not warrant redaction and that the reference to the prior statement was permissible for the purposes of contradiction and corroboration.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Statements under Section 164 CrPC - Evidentiary Value - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 164; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 157 - The petition sought redaction of a portion of PW-1's deposition where she referred to her prior statement recorded under Section 164(5) CrPC, alleging it indirectly marked the statement as substantive evidence. The court examined the legal position that a statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can only be used for contradiction or corroboration. Held that the mere reference by the witness without reproducing the statement verbatim did not amount to using it as substantive evidence and was permissible in law; thus, no expungement was warranted. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deposition of PW-1 recorded on 01-07-2024, in which she referred to her prior statement under Section 164(5) CrPC, should be expunged/redacted as it contravenes the legal bar on using such statement as substantive evidence
Final Decision
The criminal petition was dismissed. The court held that the deposition of PW-1 merely referring to her prior statement under Section 164 CrPC did not amount to using it as substantive evidence and was within the bounds of permissible contradiction or corroboration. No portion of the deposition was ordered to be expunged.
Law Points
- Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence
- can only be used for contradiction or corroboration
- reference to such statement in deposition without verbatim reproduction is permissible
