Accused Must Be Given A Legibile Copy Of Statement Recorded By Magistrate U/S 164 CrPC: Kerala High Court

Update: 2024-09-17 08:30 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Kerala High Court held that an accused should be given a legible copy of the Section 164 statement before the start of trial as he has the statutory right to use those statements to contradict the maker of the statement during cross-examination.For context, a Section 164 statement is a statement or confession recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC.The petitioner in this case...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Kerala High Court held that an accused should be given a legible copy of the Section 164 statement before the start of trial as he has the statutory right to use those statements to contradict the maker of the statement during cross-examination.

For context, a Section 164 statement is a statement or confession recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC.

The petitioner in this case had filed a petition before the District & Sessions Court to get a legible copy of the S.164 statement. The Court agreed that the copy given to the petitioner was illegible. However, the Sessions Court dismissed the petition saying that the only remedy available was to summon the Magistrate at the time of trial to explain what was written if any clarification was required at that time. Against this order, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Justice A. Badharudeen found that the order of the Sessions Court was not justifiable.

Indubitably, accused has a statutory right to use 164 statement for contradicting the maker, during cross examination of the maker, with a view to shake the version. In order to enable the said purpose, the statement must be readable and legible.”

The Court said that asking the accused to wait for the Magistrate to be summoned to get clarification of the statement would deny his right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court added that the accused will be left in a particularly vulnerable state if the prosecution does not examine the Magistrate.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Prasoon Sunny, Raji S., Ritty K. Reji, Shameel N.

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Renjit George

Case No: Crl.M.C. 7372/ 2024

Case Title: xxx v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 580

Click Here To Read/ Download Order

Tags:    

Similar News