Magistrate Can Rely on Victim’s Section 164 Statement Over Section 161 Statement: Allahabad High Court Upholds Closure Report in Kidnapping and Rape Case

Judicial Statements Carry Greater Evidentiary Value: High Court Rejects Protest Petition, Affirms Victim’s 164 Cr.P.C. Statement. In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the dismissal of a protest petition challenging the acceptance of a police closure report in a case of alleged kidnapping and rape. The court ruled that a victim’s judicial statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) carries more weight than a statement given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The revision petition, filed against the rejection of the protest petition by the Magistrate, was dismissed, with the High Court affirming that no illegality or irregularity had been committed by the trial court in accepting the final report.

Delivering the judgment on January 27, 2025, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra held that once a victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement is recorded before a Magistrate, its authenticity cannot be doubted solely on the basis of a prior inconsistent police statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The court observed:

"The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. assumes a judicial character and carries an inherent presumption of voluntariness. It cannot be disregarded merely because the victim later retracts or claims coercion."

The court further emphasized that the Magistrate exercised proper discretion in relying on the victim’s judicial statement and the supporting affidavits of her father and uncle, who also corroborated her exoneration of the accused.

Case Background: Closure Report Accepted Despite Initial Allegations
The case originated from Crime No. 17 of 2021, registered at P.S. Gagalhedi, District Saharanpur, where the informant, Abbas, alleged that his minor daughter (aged 14) had been kidnapped and raped by accused Taushif and others. Initially, in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement to the police, the victim claimed she was drugged and taken to various locations, where multiple accused persons sexually assaulted her. However, in her subsequent Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the Magistrate, she retracted these allegations, stating that she had left home voluntarily due to familial disputes and had stayed with a relative.

Based on this revised statement and affidavits from her father and uncle supporting her judicial statement, the police submitted a closure report in favor of the accused. The victim later filed a protest petition, alleging coercion in her Section 164 statement and insisting that her earlier police statement was the true version.

The Magistrate rejected the protest petition and accepted the closure report, leading to the present revision petition before the High Court.

"No Presumption Against Judicial Statement": Court Finds No Illegality in Magistrate’s Decision
The High Court upheld the Magistrate’s reliance on the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement over her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, citing well-established legal principles. Referring to Raju v. State of U.P. (2012 (78) ACC 111), the court reiterated that statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have greater evidentiary value than police statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which are merely part of the case diary and do not carry the same judicial sanctity.

The court observed: "The victim has taken contradictory stands at different stages of the proceedings. Her refusal to undergo a medical examination further weakens her allegations. The Magistrate was justified in treating her voluntary judicial statement as more credible than her previous police statement."

Final Report Upheld, But Victim Retains Right to File Private Complaint
Dismissing the revision petition, the High Court held that the Magistrate had acted within legal bounds in accepting the police’s closure report and rejecting the protest petition. However, the court clarified that the victim and the informant still have the legal right to file a private criminal complaint under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. before the competent court, should they wish to pursue the matter further.

The judgment reaffirms the settled principle that a Magistrate has four options when faced with a police closure report: (i) accept and drop proceedings, (ii) take cognizance and summon the accused, (iii) order further investigation, or (iv) treat the protest petition as a private complaint. In this case, the Magistrate’s acceptance of the closure report was found to be a valid exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: Judicial Sanctity of Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements Upheld
The ruling sets a significant precedent on the evidentiary value of judicial statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., reinforcing that such statements cannot be easily disregarded or presumed to be coerced unless substantial evidence suggests otherwise. The decision ensures a balance between the victim’s right to justice and the accused’s protection from false or contradictory allegations.

While dismissing the revision petition, the court left open the possibility of pursuing remedies through a private complaint, thus safeguarding the complainant’s legal rights.
 

Date of Decision: 27 January 2025