28 November 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Section 164 of CrPC Statement Recorded By Judicial Magistrate Can’t Be Retraced By Witness on Filmsy Grounds: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC (183 of BNSS) are highly credible because they are made before a judicial magistrate and cannot be easily retracted. The court was hearing an appeal from the accused, who challenged their conviction based on the retracted statements of two prosecution witnesses. Initially, the witnesses supported the prosecution's case in their Section 164 CrPC statements, but later claimed they were coerced by the Investigating Officer into making those statements.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating that retraction of statements made before a judicial magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not permissible once the statements have been admitted by the witnesses. The Court emphasized that such statements carry more weight than those made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and cannot be easily discarded. The Court further clarified that the judicial magistrate’s satisfaction regarding the correctness of the statement imposes a higher burden on the witness to retract. Since there was no valid reason to reject the statements, the Court affirmed the reliance placed on them by the lower courts.

Justice Sharma, in the judgment, clarified that although Section 164 CrPC statements do not carry substantive value, they can be used for contradicting or corroborating a witness under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. The Court criticized the appellants for failing to cross-examine the Investigating Officer (IO) despite their allegations that the witnesses' Section 164 statements were made under duress from him. The IO, examined during the trial, was not questioned about being present when the statements were recorded or about coercing the witnesses. Additionally, the Magistrate, who could have clarified the matter, was not called to testify. The appellants failed to provide any evidence to support their claim of threat, and the Court upheld the reliability of the witnesses' statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

The Court dismissed the possibility of retracting the prosecution witnesses' statements, noting that they were recorded by the judicial magistrate 25 days after the incident. This significant gap eliminated any suggestion that the statements were made hastily. The Court observed that the witnesses had ample time to reflect on their statements, and there was no indication that they were influenced or coached during this period. Additionally, the Court noted that one of the witnesses had a close connection with the deceased, which may explain her willingness to testify against her own family members.

The Court upheld the convictions, stating that since the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the appellants failed to disprove any of the key events in the case. It agreed with the Trial Court and High Court's assessment of the evidence, finding no errors or inconsistencies in their findings. The Court emphasized that consistent rulings by two lower courts should not be overturned on mere speculation, and therefore, dismissed the appeal.

Case- Vijay Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand

2. Section 498A IPC | Husbands Distant Relatives Aren’t Over-implicated In Exaggerated Cases: Supreme Court Cautions Courts

The Supreme Court cautioned courts to ensure that distant relatives of a husband are not unnecessarily implicated in criminal cases filed by a wife alleging domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (85 of BNS). This observation was made by a bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal while quashing the criminal proceedings against the husband's cousin and his wife, who had been named as accused in an FIR filed by the wife's father.

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to quash the case against them. Criticizing the High Court's stance, the Supreme Court noted that it was the High Court's responsibility to assess whether the inclusion of the husband's distant relatives in the case was an "over-implication" and an "exaggerated version." In this regard, the bench referenced the judgment in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr (2010) 7 SCC 667, which highlighted that "criminal trials cause immense suffering for all involved. Even if acquitted, the deep scars of disgrace may remain long after the trial."

The Court clarified that its previous observation was a caution to ensure that distant relatives of the husband are not unnecessarily implicated in matrimonial disputes under Section 498A. It emphasized the duty to examine whether the inclusion of such individuals was an over-implication or an exaggerated allegation. The Court also noted that the term "relative" is not defined in the statute and should be understood in its common sense, typically encompassing individuals related by blood, marriage, or adoption, such as parents, siblings, children, and extended family members.

The Court emphasized that when accusations are made against someone not related by blood, marriage, or adoption, it is the court's responsibility to assess whether the allegations are exaggerated. Referring to the Preeti Gupta case, the judgment, authored by Justice Ravikumar, stated that in such cases, the court must ensure that the implication of such individuals is not an over-implication and that the allegations are not an exaggerated version.

The Court referred to the judgment in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. (2012), which held that simply mentioning family members' names in a matrimonial dispute without alleging their active involvement does not justify taking action against them. The Court cautioned against the tendency of over-implication, where all household members are drawn into a domestic quarrel, particularly shortly after a marriage. Considering the petitioners lived in a different city (Mohali) from the complainant's daughter (Jalandhar), the Court further examined the situation.

The Court stated that in cases where relatives do not reside with the alleged victim, courts should not only consider whether the accused falls within the definition of "relative" under Section 498-A of the IPC, but also evaluate whether the case involves over-implication or exaggerated allegations aimed at pressuring the main accused. The Court noted that the allegations were vague and lacked sufficient evidence to establish the commission of any offence. The bench concluded that subjecting the accused to trial based on such allegations would amount to an abuse of the court's process.

The FIR was filed shortly after the husband initiated divorce proceedings, and the wife’s father accused not only the husband and his parents but also the husband's cousin and his wife of dowry harassment and cruelty. The High Court had declined to interfere, stating that the final report had been filed. The Supreme Court, however, stated that the filing of the final report alone cannot justify refusing to intervene and emphasized that subjecting the accused to trial based on such allegations would constitute an abuse of the court's process.

Case- Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab