Section 164 CrPC statement alone not substantive evidence: Cal HC

Kolkata: Observing that a statement given under Section 164 Cr.Pc is not itself a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction, Calcutta High Court acquitted a man convicted for allegedly outraging the modesty of a minor girl in 2009.

The bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das was moved by the appellant challenging his conviction by trial court under Section 354 IPC (use of criminal force on a woman to outrage her modesty).

As per the prosecution’s case, the appellant was initially accused of forcibly taking the victim to a nearby waterbody in the afternoon while she was returning from the riverside and raping her. The victim’s mother saw the accused fleeing the spot and found her daughter. There was a delay in lodging FIR due to alleged threats from the accused and his father. The trial court found no evidence for rape but convicted him for outraging the woman’s modesty.

As per the defence case, the de-facto complainant and the victim’s mother turned hostile, denying knowledge of the incident or FIR’s contents. The victim alleged in court the appellant only touched her inappropriately while in her Section 164CrPC statement claimed she was raped. She also failed to identify the appellant in court. The medical examination found no external injuries, except a hymen injury. The investigating officer didn’t visit the crime spot. FIR claimed she was 15 years old while medical evidence said she was 17-19 years old.

Noting the contradiction in the victim’s version, the court observed that the statement given under Section 164 CrPC is not itself a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction. The Magistrate erred in relying on her statement. The medical evidence revealed no external injuries or foreign bodies. There is no cogent evidence for conviction under Section 354 IPC.