J&K High Court Allows Re-Recording Of S.164 Cr.PC Statement After Woman Says She Was Pressurised To Implicate Party In False Rape Case
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the statement recorded before the magistrate can be re-recorded and there is no bar under section 164 CRPC for recording the statement of a witness more than once.The above ruling came when the petitioner made a request for re-recording of her statement stating that her first S.164 Crpc statement was not willful and she was forced to give the...
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the statement recorded before the magistrate can be re-recorded and there is no bar under section 164 CRPC for recording the statement of a witness more than once.
The above ruling came when the petitioner made a request for re-recording of her statement stating that her first S.164 Crpc statement was not willful and she was forced to give the statement, implicating the respondent in a false rape case, by her husband and her in-laws due to a family feud.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that it has been narrated by the petitioner that there was a dispute between her in-laws and family of respondent No. 2 and her husband and other family members forced her to lodge a false and frivolous case against respondent No. 2.
The court directed the official respondent to consider the desirability of re-recording of statement of the petitioner under Section 164 Cr. P. C and to take an informed decision in this regard at the earliest.
The court relied on Showkat Ali v. State and Ors. (2014) wherein the court held that there was no bar in section 161 of Cr.PC and also correspondingly in section 164 Cr.PC in recording the statements more than once. The court said such a bar cannot be imposed because there may be cases where the necessity of recording such statements more than once arises and even contradictory statements are made.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner sought a direction for re-recording her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). An FIR was registered against Respondent No. 2 under Section 376 IPC at Police Station. The petitioner alleged she was maltreated by her husband and in-laws. Her in-laws had a property dispute with Respondent No. 2 regarding land in District Kathua. The petitioner alleged that her in-laws, out of ill will, forced her to implicate Respondent No. 2 in a false rape case.
When she refused, she was allegedly beaten by her husband and brother-in-law and threatened with eviction along with her minor children. As a result, she was coerced into lodging a false FIR and giving a statement under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate in Kathua. She sought re-recording of her statement to reflect the true facts, claiming that the previous statement was given under duress.
APPEARANCE:
Jagpaul Singh, Advocate. For Petitioner
P. D. Singh, Dy. AG. For espondents
Case-Title: Archana vs. Union Territory of J&K & Another
2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 105
