The Supreme Court in Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand has reinforced the sanctity of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., ruling that such statements cannot be easily retracted. The judgment addressed a criminal appeal where the appellants challenged their conviction, which was based on the statements of two prosecution witnesses who had initially supported the prosecution case. These statements, recorded by a judicial magistrate, were later retracted by the witnesses, who claimed they had been coerced by the Investigating Officer (IO).
The bench, comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, observed that retraction from statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not permissible on mere assertions of incorrectness or coercion. The Court emphasized that such statements, recorded before a judicial magistrate, carry a higher degree of credibility due to the judicial oversight involved in their recording. The magistrate ensures that the statement reflects the true facts as presented by the witness, and this process carries more weight compared to statements made before police officers under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Justice Sharma, in his judgment, pointed out that although statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. do not hold substantive value on their own, they can be used under Section 157 of the Evidence Act for contradiction and corroboration of the witness’s testimony. This distinction became crucial in the case at hand, as the appellants attempted to argue that the prosecution witnesses’ statements were made under duress. The Court, however, found that the appellants failed to cross-examine the Investigating Officer (IO) during the trial, even though they had accused him of pressuring the witnesses into giving false statements.
The witnesses, PW-3 and PW-4, had testified that they were threatened by the IO during the recording of their Section 164 statements. However, the Court found that the appellants failed to provide any evidence to substantiate this claim. The IO was examined during the trial, but there was no suggestion from the appellants that he had threatened the witnesses. Moreover, the judicial magistrate who recorded the statements was not called to testify, despite the appellants’ claims of coercion, which the Court found to be unexplained. The Court noted that had the appellants truly believed that the statements were coerced, they should have examined the magistrate to clarify the issue.
In addition, the Court observed that the statements in question were recorded 25 days after the incident, thereby eliminating any possibility that they were hurried or under immediate pressure. The witnesses had ample time to contemplate their statements, which further undermined the claim of coercion. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that one of the witnesses, PW-1, had testified that PW-3 had a close relationship with the deceased and had accompanied her to her maternal home on certain occasions. This relationship may have motivated PW-3 to provide an accurate account of the events, despite the familial ties to the accused.
IUltimately, the Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants, stating that the lower courts had correctly appreciated the evidence on record. In dismissing the appeal, the Court emphasized that the absence of any evidence proving the illegality of the findings rendered the appeal devoid of merit. The Court ruled that the retracted statements could not be disregarded without valid grounds, and the circumstantial evidence in the case further supported the conviction.
Case Title: Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2013
Lawcutor 