क्या सीआरपीसी की धारा 164 के तहत दर्ज गवाह का बयान एक सार्वजनिक दस्तावेज है?

In the High Court of Madras

(Before Indira Banerjee, C.J. and P.N. Prakash, J.)

Murugasamy  Vs  State 

CRl. O.P. No. 12148 of 2017

Decided on September 15, 2017, [Reserved on: 01.08.2017]

शीर्षक

धारा 164 सीआरपीसी के तहत दर्ज बयान  मद्रास राज्य बनाम कृष्णन, [(1960) 73 एलडब्ल्यू 713: एआईआर 1961 मैड 92] में इस न्यायालय की एक पूर्ण पीठ द्वारा आयोजित साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा 74 (iii) के अर्थ के भीतर एक सार्वजनिक दस्तावेज है।  बयान का मूल, जो कोर्ट के रिकॉर्ड का हिस्सा होगा, साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा 62 के तहत इस तथ्य को साबित करने के लिए एक प्राथमिक सबूत है कि उक्त गवाह उस तारीख को मजिस्ट्रेट के सामने पेश होकर बयान दिया था,  लेकिन यह इसकी सामग्री की सत्यता साबित नहीं करता है। {पैरा 59}

Relied upon-

46. A Division Bench of this Court, in R. Murugesan v. State [2014-(1)-LW (Crl.) 339], in which, one of us (P.N. Prakash, J.) was a part, has elaborately discussed the evidentiary value of the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 Despite the directions of the said Division Bench that the Magistrate recording the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 need not be examined as a witness, the essence of those directions has not percolated into the subordinate judiciary. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has set out the procedure as to how Public Prosecutors in the Trial Courts should deal with a witness, vis-a-vis, his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 The Division Bench has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Delhi v. Shri Ram Lohia [AIR 1960 SC 490]and the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bashapaka Laxmiah and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2001 Crl.L.J. 4066], to conclude that a Magistrate recording the statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 need not be examined as a witness in the trial of the case. We are extracting below the relevant passages from Shri Ram Lohia (supra) and Bashapaka Laxmiah (supra):

Shri Ram Lohia:

"Statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code are not substantive evidence in a case and cannot be made use of except to corroborate or contradict the witness. An admission by a witness that a statement of his was recorded under Section 164 of the Code and that what he had stated there was true would not make the entire statement admissible; much less could any part of it be used as substantive evidence in the case.

A Judge commits an error of law in using the statement of a witness under Section 164 as a substantive evidence in coming to the conclusion that he had been won over."

Bashapaka Laxmiah:

"18. Repeatedly, we have issued instructions that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is not necessary to call the Magistrate to give evidence to prove Section 164 statement. Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 are available to the defence for contradiction by obtaining the certified copies. The Section 164 statement recorded by the Magistrate is a public document. Such practice, hereinafter, be stopped."