Pranav B Prem

The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that a rape survivor's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before a Magistrate holds a higher evidentiary value compared to the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC by an Investigating Officer.

A single-judge bench comprising Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made this observation while dismissing a criminal revision plea challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. The petition sought to contest the dismissal of a protest petition filed against the final report submitted by the police in favor of the accused. The Magistrate had accepted the final report, placing reliance on the victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement, wherein she denied the allegations against the accused.

Case Background

The case arose from an FIR lodged by the informant, Abbas, on January 14, 2021, under Section 363 IPC against the accused, Taushif. The informant alleged that the accused had enticed away his 14-year-old daughter, a minor and a Class IX student, and later committed rape on her. The victim was recovered by the police on January 15, 2021, and subsequently, her statement was recorded under Section 161 CrPC. In her initial statement under Section 161 CrPC, the victim alleged that she had been kidnapped, confined for four days, and raped by multiple accused persons, including Taushif. However, when her statement was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, she retracted her allegations, stating that she had left her home on her own due to parental rebuke and had not been subjected to any wrongful act. She also mentioned that her father had lodged a false case due to enmity. Supporting this version, the victim’s father and uncle (phupha) filed affidavits endorsing the Section 164 CrPC statement, asserting that the case against the accused was baseless.

Court's Observations and Findings

The High Court observed that the victim had changed her stand at different stages, making it difficult to conclude that her Section 164 CrPC statement suffered from falsehood or external pressure. The court emphasized that statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC by a Magistrate hold a higher evidentiary value compared to those recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC.

Justice Mishra cited the judgment in Raju vs. State of U.P. (2012) 78 ACC 111, wherein the court highlighted that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC is part of judicial proceedings and holds greater sanctity. The judgment noted: "The statement made by the prosecutrix/victim under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate stands on a high pedestal and a sanctity is attached on such statement recorded during the course of investigation, than that of her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code by the Investigating Officer." The High Court also referred to Pakhandu v. State of U.P. (2001), which laid down the different courses available to a Magistrate upon receiving a police closure report, including accepting the final report, taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, ordering further investigation, or treating the protest petition as a complaint.

In the present case, the Judicial Magistrate, after evaluating the statements and affidavits, accepted the final report and dismissed the protest petition. The High Court held that the Magistrate had acted within the bounds of law and found no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the order.

Liberty to File a Criminal Complaint

Before dismissing the revision plea, the High Court clarified that despite the acceptance of the final report, the de facto complainant and the prosecutrix retained the liberty to file a criminal complaint before the competent court under Chapter 15 of CrPC. The court stated: "Even after acceptance of final report and dismissal of protest petition filed by the de facto complainant or prosecutrix, they are at liberty to file criminal complaint under Chapter 15 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent court, if they think fit, and if such complaint is made before the court below, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law, as no embargo is created under law on filing of criminal complaint only due to the fact that revision preferred against impugned order passed by learned Magistrate has been dismissed by this Court."

The Allahabad High Court's ruling reinforces the position of law that statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC carry greater weight in judicial proceedings. The court upheld the Magistrate’s decision to rely on the victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement while accepting the final report and dismissing the protest petition. However, the ruling also ensures that the complainant retains the right to seek legal remedies through a criminal complaint if necessary.

Cause Title: Abbas And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5217 of 2023

Date: January-27-2025

Bench: Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra

[Read/Download order]