The division judge bench of Justice Shailendra Singh and Justice Ashutosh Kumar of the Patna High Court in the case of Madan Rai vs. the state of Bihar held that the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. can never be used as substantive evidence of the truth of the facts and the same may be used only for contradiction and corroboration of a witness who makes it.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant (victim) went to attend the call of nature and then, the appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 came and made her sit on their motorcycle. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 raped her, and appellant No. 2 held her by both shoulders. Furthermore, she was compelled to eat bread that had been tainted with stupefying drugs before getting locked up in the village bathroom. When the victim regained consciousness, she started crying. Afterwards, co-villagers arrived at the place and the victim narrated the whole incident to them.
The appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 120B, 376(2)(i)(N), and 109 of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 6/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 by the Trial Court. The learned trial court mainly relied upon the statement made under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and convicted and sentenced the appellant.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the material witnesses were turned hostile. It was furthermore contended that there was no evidence to support the allegations at the scene of the incident. At the P.O., there were no indications that a rape or other crime had been committed. The Trial Court disregarded the Investigating Officer's testimony. Also, the medical evidence was not in consonance with the prosecution version and the opinion of the medical expert.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the trial court had rightly analysed the prosecution evidence. It was furthermore contended that the trial court was right in convicting and sentencing the appellant and the judgment requires no interference.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble court observed that it does not seem appropriate to rely on the victim's statements made in chief-examination, and both the statements she made in cross-examination and the allegations that she made there do not appear to be credible. In this regard, the trial court incorrectly appreciated the victim's evidence.
It was furthermore observed that even the medical evidence doesn’t support the case of the prosecution.
It was noted that the statement made and recorded in accordance with Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code is only permitted to be used to contradict or strengthen the evidence of the witness who made it, never as substantive evidence of the reality of the facts.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Utpal Das and another versus the State of West Bengal.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the trial court had wrongly convicted the appellants for the offences. The court set aside the judgment of the trial court.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Madan Rai vs. the state of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 863 of 2018
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Advocate, Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
