High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence

Statements Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Are Not Substantive Evidence: High Court Asserts

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Uttarakhand has acquitted Suresh Mehto and Rajnarayan @ Rajkumar Mehto, who were previously convicted for the murder of Pradeep Kumar Paswan. The court emphasized that statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) are not substantive evidence and can only be used for corroboration or contradiction. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit, also noted the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence linking the appellants to the crime.

The case originated from the suspicious death of Pradeep Kumar Paswan, who was found dead in his rented room in Haridwar. The initial FIR, lodged by the victim’s brother Pramod Paswan, led to the arrest of the appellants. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by key witnesses who later turned hostile during the trial. Despite these statements, the trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to this appeal.

The High Court scrutinized the reliability of the witness testimonies, particularly those of PW-3 Soniya and PW-4 Ajay Yadav, whose initial statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Both witnesses later retracted their statements during the trial, claiming they were made under police pressure. The court observed, “Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and can only be used for corroboration or contradiction. Such statements alone cannot substantiate a conviction.”

The court noted the prosecution’s failure to establish a motive for the appellants to commit the murder. “In the absence of any motive, it is implausible to link the appellants to the crime solely based on the retracted statements,” the bench remarked.

Beyond the hostile witness testimonies, the prosecution did not present any direct or circumstantial evidence to substantiate the charges. The court emphasized that the lack of corroborative evidence significantly weakened the prosecution’s case, stating, “The prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The judgment extensively cited precedents from the Supreme Court, reinforcing the principle that convictions cannot be sustained solely on statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Justice Pankaj Purohit remarked, “The reliance on statements given under duress and without corroborative evidence goes against the principles of justice. Convictions must be based on credible and substantial evidence.”

Justice Pankaj Purohit highlighted the legal principle, stating, “Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and can only be used for corroboration or contradiction. Convictions must be based on 
The High Court’s ruling to acquit Suresh Mehto and Rajnarayan @ Rajkumar Mehto underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice. By setting aside the trial court’s judgment, the decision reaffirms the limited evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the necessity for substantial evidence in securing convictions. This landmark judgment is expected to have significant implications for future criminal cases, reinforcing the standards of evidence required for convictions.
 

Date of Decision: July 04, 2024