Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 – Principles governing circumstantial evidence reiterated – On facts and circumstances, held that the Trial Court and the High Court have correctly appreciated the evidence, and the conviction of the Appellant upheld: Held: It is a well settled principle of law that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved must point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused and must be incompatible with any theory of being innocent – There are no material contradictions in the versions of the witnesses – The evidence of every witness cannot be subject to the same level of scrutiny and the Court must be alive to the social position of the witness – Further, it is trite law that mere presence of minor variations is not fatal to the case of the prosecution – It is so because natural testimony is bound to have variations – The question is whether the variations or contradictions could be termed as fatal to the case of the prosecution – The evidence adduced before the Court is to be examined as a whole and not in isolation – This principle assumes greater importance in cases which are based on circumstantial evidence as in the absence of direct evidence of the offence, the Court is required to analyze the proved circumstances in a collective sense to arrive at a reasonable finding – In such cases, the finding of the Court is essentially an irresistible inference which is drawn from the proved material on record. [Paras 11, 25, 39]
Jurisprudence concerning statements under Section 164 CrPC – Discussed:
Held: Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not considered as a substantive piece of evidence, as substantive oral evidence is one which is deposed before the Court and is subjected to cross- examination – However, Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that a statement under Section 164 CrPC could be used for both corroboration and contradiction – It could be used to corroborate the testimonies of other witnesses – The need for recording the statement of a witness under Section 164 CrPC arises when the witness appears to be connected to the accused and is prone to changing his version at a later stage due to influence – Considering the conceptual requirement of recording a statement before a Judicial Magistrate during the course of investigation and the utility thereof, as prescribed in Section 157 of Evidence Act, it could be observed that a statement under Section 164, although not a substantive piece of evidence, not only meets the test of relevancy but could also be used for the purposes of contradiction and corroboration – A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC serves a special purpose in a criminal investigation as a greater amount of credibility is attached to it for being recorded by a Judicial Magistrate and not by the Investigating Officer – A statement under Section
164 CrPC is not subjected to the constraints attached with a statement under Section 161 CrPC and the vigour of Section 162 CrPC does not apply to a statement under Section 164 CrPC – Therefore, it must be considered on a better footing – However, relevancy, admissibility and reliability are distinct concepts in the realm of the law of evidence – The weight to be attached to such a statement (reliability thereof) is to be determined by the Court on a case-to-case basis and the same would depend to some extent upon whether the witness has remained true to the statement or has resiled from it, but it would not be a conclusive factor. [Paras 27, 28]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.