Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Trial Courts & Police On Section164 CrPC Statement, Says Copies Must Be Furnished To Accused

Update: 2026-08-29 11:30 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

story

Upholding the right to a fair trial, the Karnataka High Court has recently acquitted a POCSO accused, while simultaneously issuing suo motu guidelines for Investigating Officers and trial Courts on recordview of Section 164 CrPC [Section 183 BNSS] statements, as well as the mandatory furnishing of statements recorded to the accused. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322]The Division Bench of Justice...

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.

Subscribe Now

Upholding the right to a fair trial, the Karnataka High Court has recently acquitted a POCSO accused, while simultaneously issuing suo motu guidelines for Investigating Officers and trial Courts on recordview of Section 164 CrPC [Section 183 BNSS] statements, as well as the mandatory furnishing of statements recorded to the accused. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322]

The Division Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice G Basavaraja allowed the appeal filed by the accused and set aside the sentence of conviction rendered by a Kolar court.

“…An accused, howsoever grave the accusation, is entitled to a fair trial, to know the precise charge he is called upon to meet, to have that charge tested on legally admissible and reliable evidence, and to the benefit of every reasonable doubt that genuinely arises from the record. The graver the offence and the greater the resultant stigma and sentence, the more scrupulous must be the Court's scrutiny of the evidence before conviction for it is equally true that a wrongful conviction is no less a miscarriage of justice than a wrongful acquittal”, the court noted in the order.

In the instant case, the court observed that the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC was never furnished to the accused, as required under Section 207(iv) CrPC.

“…Non-compliance in furnishing the statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. to the accused violates the accused's fair-trial right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India…. The learned Special Judge has virtually no discretion to withhold documents under Section 173(5) Cr.PC, save where exclusion is exclusively sought by the accused under Section 170(6) or Section 161(3) Cr.PC, or in respect of copies where the document falling under clause (v) is voluminous.”, the court said.

Similarly, noting repetitive 'infirmities' in several criminal appeals involving offences under the IPC, POCSO Act, as well as SC/ST Act, issued comprehensive guidelines for the guidance of Investigating Officers and Trial Court judges with respect to Section 164 CrPC.

Guidelines for Officers

1. Perusal of Section 164 Statement Before Filing Charge-sheet:

“…Before submission of the charge-sheet or final report, it shall be the duty of the Investigating Officer to peruse the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 183(5) of the BNSS, 2023….”

2. Application of Mind:

“…Upon obtaining the certified copy... it shall be the duty of the Investigating Officer to apply his mind as to whether the said statement supports or is contrary to the case of the prosecution…”

3. Independent Satisfaction Where Witness Deposes Nothing Against Accused:

“…Where the witness has not deposed anything against the accused in the statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., it shall be the duty of the Investigating Officer to satisfy himself that sufficient material, independent of such statement, exists to justify filing of the charge-sheet against the accused…”

The court also noted that the Investigating Officer must record reasons for discarding or overlooking the Section 164 statement.

“…It bears reiteration that the Investigating Officer functions, in essence, as a pre-trial judge, and is under a solemn legal obligation, before submission of any final report, to satisfy himself as to the existence of sufficient material to proceed against the accused. It is only thereafter, upon due application of mind, that a charge-sheet or final report may properly be filed…”, the court pointed out.

Guidelines For Judges

Safe Custody

“Upon recording of the statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 183(5) of the BNSS, 2023, it shall be the duty of the Magistrate to preserve the same in safe custody”.

Furnishing Documents

“Upon appearance of the accused before the learned Magistrate/Sessions Judge/Special Judge, it shall be the duty of such Judge to furnish all documents as required under Section 207(iv) Cr.P.C., including the copy of the statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 183(5) of the BNSS, 2023”, the court noted as a general guideline for the judges.

Issuing Certified Copies

“...Upon an application being made by the Investigating Officer for a certified copy of the statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., it shall be the duty of the concerned Magistrate/Special Judge to issue the same without delay”, the court added further, stipulating another guideline for the trial courts.

Additionally, the Court noted that in several cases, the Magistrate or Sessions Judge fails to put any question to the accused in relation to the Section 164 statement while recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC.

The Court held that this must be done to ensure the accused has an opportunity to explain any contradictions or omissions.

Moreover, the Court also iterated that where the Investigating Officer fails to produce or furnish the Section 164 statement, the trial Court may draw an adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act.

“…The Registry is further directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Karnataka, with a request that the same be circulated, through the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, to all Investigating Officers in the State, for strict compliance with the guidelines set out herein while investigating offences of this nature…”, the court noted before parting.

Additionally, the Division Bench has also asked the registry to circulate the aforesaid judgment and the guidelines issues to all judicial officers presiding over criminal trials, as well as the President of the Karnataka Judicial Academy requesting to ensure compliance by trainee judges.

In the instant case, the trial Court had convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. However, the High Court acquitted the accused majorly on the grounds that the age of the victim was not proved, and that Section 164 statement was not furnished to the accused which is a violation of Article 21. Moreover, statement under section 164 contradicted trial testimony, and the conviction under Section 376(2) (n) was made without charge.

“…The trial Court proceeded to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, a distinct and more aggravated category of the offence, attracting an enhanced minimum sentence, without any charge having been framed in respect thereof”, the court said further.

The court also pointed out that the medical evidence did not support rape.

The Court, while allowing the appeal, has also directed payment of Rs 10,000 to Adv. N.S. Sampangi Ramaiah, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of respondent No.2.