Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 164 crpc statement in Mariappan vs The Inspector Of Police on 8 September, 2023Matching Fragments
(b) P.W.10 – Medical Officer attached to the Jameen Kollamkondan Primary Health Centre has sent a letter to the Child Welfare Committee https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis under Ex.P.8 requesting them to take care of the victim girl and the child born to her, as the victim girl has not completed 18 years of age.
(c) On 06.12.2018, P.W.1 went to the All Women Police Station, Rajapalaym and gave a typed complaint under Ex.P.1. P.W.11, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.27 of 2018 under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act and prepared the F.I.R., under Ex.P.10. P.W.13 – the then Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of F.I.R., had taken up the case for investigation, visited MMSS Home and examined the victim girl and recorded her statement. P.W.13 has then examined the medical officers and nurses, who had attended the victim girl. She gave a request to the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam for recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., came to be recorded. Thereafter, she examined the said witnesses and recorded their further statements. On the basis of the statement taken from P.W.2, P.W.13 visited the occurrence place at Thalavoipuram and prepapred an observation Mahazar under Ex.P.7 and drew a rough sketch under Ex.P.13 in the presence of P.W.6 – Muthiah and one Bagavathy. P.W.13 along with the Sub-Inspector of Police – P.W.7 and Constables made search for the accused and the accused who was standing near the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Santhanamariaman temple, Jeeva Nagar, on seeing the police, has attempted to run away from that place and got a slip in the cement floor, fell down and sustained injuries on his mouth. She arrested the accused and recorded the voluntary confession statement given by the accused in the presence of the police and brought the accused to the station.
- P.W.13 – Inspector of Police has taken up the investigation and examined P.W.2 – victim girl at MMSS Home and recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. - examined P.W.1 and P.W.4 and recorded their statements.
6 10.12.2018 As per the requisition of P.W.13, statements under Section 164 Cr.p.C., from P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam under Exs.P.2, P.3 and P.5 respectively;
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a suo motu Writ (Criminal) No.1 of 2017 has deprecated the practice of omni-bus marking of Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of witness. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is not a substantial evidence, but the same can be used to corroborate or contradict the evidence of author recorded subsequently. It is pertinent to note that the relevant portion of such prior statements of living persons used for contradiction or corroboration under Section 145/157 of the Evidence Act deserves to be marked separately and specifically. Previously there was a practice in the criminal courts of marking the entire confession statement of the accused and after coming down heavily on the said practice by this Court, the same has been stopped. But the practice of marking the entire statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., by the Criminal Courts is on the rise. It is high time for the criminal Courts to understand the scope and evidentiary value of the statement recorded under Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 164 Cr.P.C., and to stop the practice of marking the entire statements,.The criminal court should permit the prosecution as well as defence, only to mark the particular potion of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., either for corroboration or for contradiction.
43. Generally, the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., cannot be considered or treated as the evidence of the maker of the statement, but as per the amended provision under Section 164(5-A), the statement recorded from a person against whom the sexual offence was committed, can be considered as their chief examination provided the conditions stated in Section 164(5-A)(a) and (b) are satisfied. Even if the conditions under Section 164(5-A) Cr.P.C., are satisfied, the trial Court cannot mark the entire statement of the victim as an exhibit while examining the maker of the statement, but the statement itself has to be treated as chief examination evidence of the maker.