Statements Under Section 164 CrPC Cannot Be Recorded to Contradict Earlier Statements: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Investigating Agency Sponsorship Necessary for Recording Statements Under Section 164 CrPC - Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition seeking permission to record a second statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal held that while Section 164 CrPC allows for the recording of multiple statements, such a practice cannot be permitted when the purpose is to negate or contradict an earlier statement.

The Court observed: "Permitting the recording of a second statement under Section 164 CrPC merely to contradict an earlier statement undermines the sanctity of the process. Such applications should only be entertained in exceptional circumstances and must generally be sponsored by the investigating agency."

"Magistrates Must Exercise Caution in Entertaining Unsponsored 164 CrPC Applications"

The case arose when the father of the prosecutrix filed an application before the Special Judge (POCSO), Jabalpur, requesting the recording of her second statement under Section 164 CrPC. The application claimed that the prosecutrix’s earlier statement, recorded on December 14, 2023, was false and had implicated the applicant under pressure. The Special Judge rejected the request, noting that the application was filed three months after the initial statement and was not supported by the investigating agency.

Affirming the Trial Court’s decision, the High Court emphasized: "Applications for recording second statements under Section 164 CrPC should be approached with caution. Allowing unsponsored applications—unsupported by the investigating agency—risks opening the floodgates to misuse of the provision and disrupting the investigation process."

The Court further observed that the prosecutrix could raise any concerns about her earlier statement during trial: "The prosecutrix, as a witness, will have ample opportunity to clarify or contradict her previous statement during cross-examination in the trial process. Allowing repeated statements under Section 164 CrPC without valid reasons risks diluting the evidentiary value of the earlier statements."

"Sanctity of Section 164 CrPC Statements Must Be Preserved"

In its reasoning, the Court highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Justice Agrawal stated:

"Statements under Section 164 CrPC carry significant evidentiary value and must be safeguarded against misuse. Repeated applications for recording statements, especially when intended to negate earlier testimony, undermine the sanctity of the process and create an undue burden on Magistrates."

The Court also underscored that such statements should not be used to interfere with the course of investigation. Referring to precedents, Justice Agrawal noted:

"The process of investigation should remain unimpeded. If individuals are allowed to file unsponsored applications for repeated statements, it could derail the investigation and allow parties to manipulate the process to their advantage."

Court Relies on Supreme Court Guidance on Section 164 CrPC

In dismissing the petition, the High Court relied on several Supreme Court precedents that clarify the role of Magistrates in recording statements under Section 164 CrPC:

• Jogendra Nahak v. State of Orissa, (2000) 1 SCC 272:

• The Supreme Court held that Magistrates should not entertain unsponsored applications for recording statements under Section 164 CrPC, except in exceptional circumstances. It emphasized that such applications must generally be initiated by the investigating agency. The Court explained:

• "If a Magistrate is obliged to record the statements of all such persons who approach him, the situation would become anomalous, and every Magistrate’s court will be burdened with numerous requests to create records in advance for aiding one party or another."

• Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406:

• The Supreme Court reiterated that the investigating agency must sponsor applications for recording statements under Section 164 CrPC to ensure the integrity of the investigation process. It warned against the misuse of the provision to benefit one party at the expense of the investigation.

• Halke Bhai Gond v. State of M.P., Writ Appeal No. 602/2022:

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court in this case allowed a second statement under Section 164 CrPC in exceptional circumstances but emphasized that safeguards must be in place to prevent abuse.

The High Court observed that while these judgments allow for multiple statements under Section 164 CrPC, they also caution against misuse. Justice Agrawal noted: "Statements under Section 164 CrPC must not become a tool for parties to manipulate the investigation. Such statements should be recorded sparingly and only when valid reasons are presented, preferably with the sponsorship of the investigating agency."

Prosecutrix’s Earlier Statement Cannot Be Contradicted Through 164 CrPC

The High Court also examined the timeline and circumstances surrounding the prosecutrix’s initial statement. The prosecutrix, aged 13 at the time of the alleged incident, had recorded her first statement under Section 164 CrPC in December 2023, implicating the applicant in offenses under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC, as well as the POCSO Act, 2012. Nearly three months later, her father filed an application for a second statement, alleging that the earlier statement was false and given under duress.

The Court rejected this reasoning, stating: "A delay of three months and the lack of cogent reasons for seeking a second statement cast doubt on the credibility of the request. The father’s application appears motivated by an attempt to negate the prosecutrix’s earlier testimony, which is impermissible under the law."

The Court added: "The prosecutrix will have the opportunity to clarify or contradict her earlier statement during trial. There is no justification for bypassing the established trial process to record a second statement under Section 164 CrPC."

On the Role of Investigating Agency: "Applications for recording statements under Section 164 CrPC must generally be sponsored by the investigating agency. Allowing unsponsored applications could disrupt the investigation process and lead to misuse."

On Multiple Statements Under Section 164 CrPC: "While the law permits recording of multiple statements, this should not be used to negate earlier testimony or manipulate the investigation. The sanctity of the process must be preserved."

On Judicial Caution: "Magistrates have wide discretion to reject applications for recording statements under Section 164 CrPC when they are unsupported by the investigating agency or lack valid reasons."

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC, upholding the Trial Court’s decision to reject the request for recording a second statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC. Justice Agrawal concluded:

"The Trial Court was correct in rejecting the application, as it provided cogent reasons for doing so. Applications for repeated statements under Section 164 CrPC must be approached with caution and should not be entertained without proper sponsorship or justification."

Date of Decision: January 22, 2025