Notes on recording of confession and statement by Magistrate (S 164 of CRPC)

S 164 of CRPC. Recording of confession and statements:-

1) Any metropolitan Magistrate  or Judicial magistrate may record any confession or statement made to him in the course of investigation or at any time afterwards before commencement of inquiry or trial;

provided that any confession or statement made under this section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of advocate of person accused of an offence:{inserted by amendment Act 2008 with effect from 31-12-2009}

Read important judgments on S 164 of CRPC:

Click here

Print Page

Whether court can rely on confession recorded by magistrate if he is not examined as witness?

 It is unnecessary for us to say anything on this question, since we are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge was wholly wrong in excluding and the High Court was certainly right in acting upon the confessional statement made to the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has put to the accused all the necessary questions to satisfy himself that the confession was voluntary. He has also appended the necessary certificate. We do not accept Shri Jain's submission that the learned Magistrate should have been examined as a witness. Section 80 of the Evidence Act makes the examination of the Magistrate unnecessary. It authorises the Court to presume that the document is genuine, that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken are true and that such confession was truly taken in accordance with law. Shri Jain submitted that if the Magistrate had been examined as a witness, the accused might have been in a position to show, by cross examination that the confession recorded by the Magistrate was not voluntary. The Magistrate has appended a certificate that he was satisfied that the confession was voluntary. No circumstance has been brought out in the evidence justifying the calling of the Magistrate as a witness. We do not think that the circumstances of the case justify any comment on the alleged failure of the prosecution to examine the Magistrate as a witness.

Supreme Court of India

Madi Ganga vs State Of Orissa on 19 February, 1981

Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 SC 1165, 1981 CriLJ 628, (1981) 2 SCC 224, 1981 (13) UJ 503 SC

Bench: B Islam, O C Reddy

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to examine magistrate who has recorded statement U/S 164 of CRPC?

"Presumption as the documents produced as record of evidence :-

Whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorised by law to take such evidence, or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume -

that the document is genuine; that that any statement as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken."

When we drew his attention to the requirement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that at any rate, the prosecution must prove that the learned Magistrate did comply with the requirement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in the matter of recording statement he relied on the presumption available under Section 80 of the Evidence Act and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madi Ganga v. State of Orissa. , in which the Supreme Court pointed out that Section 80 of the Evidence Act makes the examination of the Magistrate unnecessary. It authorises the Court to presume that the document it genuine, that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken are true and that such confession was truly taken in accordance with law. They further pointed out that where the Magistrate had put to the accused all the necessary questions to satisfy himself that the confession was voluntary and, he had also appended the necessary certificate, it can be rightly acted upon without examining the Magistrate in the absence of any circumstances justifying the calling of the Magistrate as a witness. 

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs R. Varadaraju on 31 January, 1994

Equivalent citations: 1994 (2) ALT Cri 319, 1995 CriLJ 1429, ILR 1994 KAR 635

Print Page