Recording of confessions and statements
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with recording of confessions and statements. Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commenc The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:
Provided that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer
on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him ; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody.
(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession ; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect: -
"I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him.
(Signed) A. B. Magistrate".
(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub- section (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case ; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.
(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.
Section 164, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 183 Recording of confessions and statements Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 5
- s. 163 No inducement to be offered
- s. 207 Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents
- s. 208 Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other casestriable by Court of Session
- s. 308 Trial of person not complying with conditions of pardon
- s. 463 Non-compliance with provisions of section 164 or section 281
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
R. Shaji v. State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-13.pdf 2013-02-04 (not same-date order-14 ROP). Chauhan/Gowda, Crl A 1774/2010. A CrPC 164 magistrate statement is not substantive evidence but can be used to corroborate or contradict; a 161 police statement is still weaker and cannot be treated as substantive. Delay or procedural wrinkles in recording 164 go to weight, not automatic exclusion. Map CrPC 161 and 164 plus BNSS 180/183.
On this section: A s.164 magistrate statement is not substantive evidence either, but it can corroborate or contradict; delay goes to weight, not automatic exclusion.
-
Selvamani vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a victim of gang rape and her family members retract their testimony during cross-examination due to long trial delays and possible witness intimidation, their evidence cannot be rejected in toto. Instead, the court must carefully scrutinize the evidence and accept those parts which are dependable and consistent with corroborating evidence such as the FIR, medical examination findings, and statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC. If such corroborating evidence establishes that forcible sexual intercourse occurred, the conviction can be sustained despite the victim's retraction, provided the medical evidence clearly shows injuries consistent with gang rape.
On this section: Provides for recording of statements by judicial magistrate. The victim's statement was recorded under this section by Judicial Magistrate Lakshmi Ramesh, which was used as corroborating evidence.
-
Baij Nath Sah vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for conviction. Moreover, a person cannot be convicted of kidnapping or abduction merely because the victim was brought to his home after the kidnapping had already been effected by other accused persons. There must be independent evidence showing his involvement in the actual kidnapping or the events preceding it to establish criminal liability for such offences.
On this section: Statement recorded by Magistrate; Supreme Court held such statements are not substantive evidence but can only be used for corroboration or contradiction
-
State of Punjab vs Harjagdev Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A judicial confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC by a competent Magistrate following the prescribed procedure—including warning the accused that the confession may be used as evidence and satisfying the Magistrate that it is voluntary—is admissible and reliable evidence of guilt even if there are technical non-compliances with procedural requirements under Section 164, unless the accused demonstrates that such non-compliance caused him actual injury in his defence on merits. An extra-judicial confession may also be admissible if the witness supports the substance of the confession even if the accused later claims the witness had no opportunity to hear it. The voluntariness of a confession is determined by objective assessment of facts and circumstances, including whether the confession was made in fit state of mind and whether any inducement from person in authority with reference to the charge created reasonable grounds for the accused to suppose he would gain advantage or avoid temporal evil by confessing.
On this section: Provides procedure for Magistrate to record confessions. Court extensively discussed subsections (1) through (6) and requirements that magistrate must explain to accused that confession is voluntary and may be used as evidence. Court held requisite procedure was followed by Magistrate PW.9.
-
Abbas Ahmad Choudhary vs State of Assam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving rape, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and this principle applies equally to rape cases as to all other criminal offenses. While the statement of a rape victim must be given primary consideration, material inconsistencies between the victim's earlier statement (recorded immediately after the crime before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC) and later in-court testimony regarding a specific accused's involvement can create reasonable doubt about that accused's guilt. When such inconsistencies exist, and when corroborating circumstantial evidence (such as apprehension by police) suggests an accused was not present at the material time, the Court cannot convict the accused merely on the basis of the victim's contradictory testimony. There is no presumption that a rape victim would always tell the entire truth, and courts must apply the standard test of reasonable doubt to determine guilt.
On this section: Recorded statement of prosecutrix before Magistrate on September 17, 1997 - Court used this as primary evidence to establish inconsistencies regarding Abbas Ahmad Choudhary's involvement
-
State of U. P vs Veer Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person who makes a statement believed to be a dying declaration subsequently survives, such statement must be treated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such statements can be used only for corroboration under Section 157 or for contradiction under Section 155 of the Evidence Act, and not as substantive evidence. Therefore, the acquittal of accused persons solely on the ground that they were not named in such a limited statement, when they were named in the FIR and other evidence of their involvement exists, constitutes a manifest error of law and is indefensible. Appellate courts must apply their mind objectively to all evidence on record and not dispose of appeals on erroneous or incomplete analysis of evidence.
On this section: Recording of confessions and statements; central to the judgment regarding how statements made by persons believed to be dying but who survive should be treated; such statements are recorded by Executive Magistrate and must be used only for corroboration or contradiction
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Recording of confessions and statements by Magistrates with safeguards
-
Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For a conviction under Section 376 IPC based on false promise of marriage, the court must find clear and convincing evidence that the accused harboured mala fide intentions and made a false promise of marriage with the sole objective of seducing the victim into sexual acts from the very inception of the relationship. Mere breach of a promise to marry, or failure to fulfil a promise due to unforeseen circumstances or changed intentions during the course of the relationship, does not constitute rape unless the deception was deliberate and predatory from the beginning. The victim's age, maturity, voluntary participation, lack of resistance, and continued hope of marriage are relevant factors in determining whether consent was genuinely given or obtained through deception.
On this section: Recording of statement of prosecutrix before magistrate; the prosecutrix's statement was recorded on May 20, 1995, and the court examined contradictions between this statement and her testimony in court
-
Girish Sharma vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While a prosecutor enjoys discretion in deciding whether to charge a person as an accused or cite them as a witness in a chargesheet, the court retains ultimate and final authority to take cognizance based on a balanced assessment of the interests of justice. In exercising this authority, the court must weigh: (a) the utility of the person as a witness in strengthening the prosecution case against more serious accused; (b) the interests of justice in summoning such person as an accused; and (c) whether summoning them as accused would jeopardize the prosecution case against the main accused. The prosecutor's decision to cite a person as witness is not binding on the court and can be interfered with when interests of justice so require. However, such interference must be based on a holistic consideration of all relevant factors, not merely on the existence of incriminating material. Additionally, the procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C. (seeking pardon for accomplices) is not the only available procedure for citing an accomplice as a witness, and accomplices can be used as witnesses in appropriate circumstances without formal pardon proceedings.
On this section: Recording of statements before Magistrate during investigation; same holding as Section 161 statements
-
Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials involving circumstantial evidence and conspiracy, eyewitness identification without test identification parade is admissible and can support conviction if the witness is trustworthy and reliable, provided such identification is corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence including extra-judicial confessions, recovered weapons, telephonic communications and documents. However, mere telephonic communications without proof of exclusive control or personal involvement in conspiatorial acts are insufficient to establish guilt when the communications are explainable by familial or legitimate relationships. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through competent and corroborating evidence.
On this section: Referenced for recording of statements of witnesses Jagdeep Singh, Harjeet Singh and Jasbir Singh which provided extra-judicial confessions and eyewitness accounts of preparatory meetings
-
Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a witness is trustworthy and reliable and has opportunity to observe and recall the incident, the absence of a test identification parade does not render their in-court identification inadmissible or unsafe if it is supported by credible corroborating material evidence such as medical evidence, other eyewitness accounts, recoveries of items connected to the crime, and incriminating statements. Conviction under Sections 364, 302, and 307 read with Section 120B IPC can be sustained on the basis of such circumstantial evidence if the circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. However, conviction must not be based on mere suspicion or telephone communications alone without concrete corroborating evidence, as the standard of proof requires evidence to be sufficient and convincing.
On this section: Applied for recording statements of witnesses and suspects before Judicial Magistrate to ensure credibility and documentary evidence of witness accounts.
-
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.
On this section: Recording of confessions and statements by magistrates
-
Senthilkumar vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA, if properly recorded following mandatory procedural safeguards, voluntarily made by the accused, and found by the court to be truthful, is sufficient to form the basis of conviction. Such conviction may be based on the confession alone without corroboration if the court is satisfied of its probative value. However, retraction of such confession is not automatically fatal if the court, after examining the circumstances, finds the original confession was voluntary and true and the retraction is merely an afterthought. Corroboration, while generally required as a matter of caution, is not always mandatory and depends on facts of the case. For use of confessional statement of one co-accused against another co-accused, general corroboration is required unless the court is satisfied the confession has high probative value. To establish conspiracy under Section 120(B) IPC in context of TADA offences, it is essential to prove either actual participation in the conspiracy or prior knowledge of the planned offence; mere arrangement for hospitality or contact with conspirators without prior knowledge is insufficient. Hostile witness testimony need not be completely rejected; that portion which is corroborated by other evidence on record may be relied upon. For criminal conviction in terrorist cases, the standard of proof remains 'beyond reasonable doubt', and lack of corroboration on material facts connecting an accused to the conspiracy may warrant acquittal despite other evidence.
On this section: Section 164 applied for recording witness statements before judicial magistrate; Section 173 for police investigation report; Section 313 for statements of accused in response to charges
-
State of Assam vs Faruk Ahmed
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions for child marriage and sexual assault of minors under the POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the victim's age at the time of marriage through reliable documentary evidence such as birth certificates and marriage documents. Oral evidence alone, without corroborating documentary proof, is insufficient to establish that a marriage was a child marriage or that sexual assault occurred on a minor. The absence of such documentary evidence, despite the prosecution's duty to produce it, results in acquittal as the charges cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Recording of Confessions and Statements - The victim's statement was recorded under this section by the Magistrate and produced as evidence (Ext-P2/PW-2).
-
Patel Rameshore Baburao vs The State of Manipur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person kills his spouse upon discovering her infidelity, and such discovery causes grave and sudden provocation leading to loss of self-control, the offense falls within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. The mental element required is knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, not intention to cause death. The absence of premeditation and the sudden nature of the act in response to grave provocation are significant factors in determining the appropriate conviction and sentence.
On this section: Recording of confessional statement by magistrate; the court examined the admissibility and reliability of the confessional statement recorded under this section
-
Rajender Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mandatory requirement under Section 275(4) Cr.P.C. that witness depositions in warrant cases must be signed by the Magistrate is not a curable irregularity but a fatal defect that renders the evidence inadmissible and vitiates the entire trial. Additionally, the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is a fundamental component of the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and denial of this right prejudices the accused and violates principles of natural justice. When an Investigating Officer fails to appear for cross-examination, the evidence collected by that officer remains unproved and cannot be relied upon for conviction.
On this section: Statements recorded under this section cannot be used as evidence without cross-examination of maker
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… with Rule 15(3) of the TADA Rules reflecting the officer's satisfaction regarding the voluntariness of the confessions. <span id="page-10-0"></span><sup>1</sup> (1994) 3 SCC 569 6.7 That apart, it is further submitted that the confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Zargar was additionally recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) which was duly exhibited during the trial. 6.8 Thus, the confessional statements of Mohd. Salim Zargar, Mushtaq Ahmed Khan and Mohd. Sadiq Rather were recorded following the legal procedure mandated by the statute. Therefore, the Special Court was not at all …
-
… with Rule 15(3) of the TADA Rules reflecting the officer's satisfaction regarding the voluntariness of the confessions. <span id="page-10-0"></span><sup>1</sup> (1994) 3 SCC 569 6.7 That apart, it is further submitted that the confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Zargar was additionally recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) which was duly exhibited during the trial. 6.8 Thus, the confessional statements of Mohd. Salim Zargar, Mushtaq Ahmed Khan and Mohd. Sadiq Rather were recorded following the legal procedure mandated by the statute. Therefore, the Special Court was not at all …
-
… It found that the testimonies of the witnesses were credible and the retraction of their statements by PW-3 and PW-4, sisters of appellant no. 1, was a result of tutoring. Thus, the statements of the said witnesses <span id="page-2-0"></span><sup>1</sup> Hereinafter referred as "IPC" recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[2]( page-3-0) were found to be truthful and natural. 5. The decision of the Trial Court was assailed before the High Court and the High Court, in the impugned order/judgment, found that the Trial Court had correctly analyzed the evidence on record and no infirmity was found …
Questions about Section 164
What have the courts held on Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
R. Shaji v. State of Kerala (04 Feb 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: A s.164 magistrate statement is not substantive evidence either, but it can corroborate or contradict; delay goes to weight, not automatic exclusion. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 164, section 164 CRPC, section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. People searching for it also type crpc 164 in bnss and crpc 164 statement. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with R. Shaji v. State of Kerala (04 Feb 2013).
What should I read with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 281 (Record of examination of accused), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 183 (Recording of confessions and statements), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly called confession before magistrate, and cited as CRPC 164, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.