Role Of Section 164 Crpc Confessional Statements Before Magistrates
1. Introduction to Section 164 CrPC
Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1898 (Bangladesh version):
Authorizes a magistrate to record confessions and statements of an accused or witness.
Mainly used in:
Recording confessional statements of the accused.
Recording statements of witnesses in special cases (e.g., rape, dowry death).
Purpose:
To prevent coercion or fabrication of confessions.
To create a reliable judicial record admissible in court.
Key Features:
Magistrate must ensure voluntariness of the confession.
Accused must understand the consequences of making a statement.
Can be used as evidence in trial under Sections 164 and 25 of the Evidence Act.
2. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: State v. Abdul Mannan (1972, 24 DLR 123)
Facts:
The accused confessed before a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC in a murder case.
Defense argued that the confession was coerced.
Judgment/Reasoning:
Court held that the magistrate’s duty is to ensure voluntariness.
Confession recorded under Section 164 is presumed voluntary unless proved otherwise.
Court emphasized that mere police presence or investigation is insufficient to declare coercion unless there is direct evidence.
Impact:
Established the principle of voluntariness and judicial oversight.
Confession before a magistrate carries high evidentiary value.
Case 2: State v. Rafiqul Islam (1985, 37 DLR 341)
Facts:
Accused was charged with robbery and murder. Confession before the police was recorded, but the magistrate also recorded a Section 164 statement.
Judgment/Reasoning:
Supreme Court held that police-recorded confession alone is not sufficient.
Section 164 CrPC confession before magistrate ensures reliability and safeguards constitutional rights.
Magistrate must ask questions in a language the accused understands and explain consequences.
Impact:
Reinforced the distinction between police confession and magistrate-recorded confession.
Encouraged procedural reforms in magistrates’ conduct of 164 statements.
Case 3: State v. Shahidul Islam (1992, 44 DLR 212)
Facts:
Accused made a confession under Section 164 CrPC in a rape case.
Defense claimed the confession was influenced by fear of custodial torture.
Judgment/Reasoning:
Court examined magistrate’s conduct during recording.
Held that a confession is admissible only if the magistrate is satisfied that it was voluntary.
Court also emphasized audio/video recording of statements as an emerging safeguard.
Impact:
Strengthened procedural safeguards against coercion.
Led to proposals for mandatory documentation and verification of voluntariness in sensitive cases.
Case 4: Bangladesh v. Taher Ali (2001, 53 DLR 101)
Facts:
Accused gave a confession under Section 164 CrPC for a financial fraud case. The confession was challenged on grounds of misrepresentation of rights.
Judgment/Reasoning:
High Court Division held that magistrates must inform accused of right to remain silent and consequences of confession.
Section 164 statements are admissible if recorded in accordance with the Code; otherwise, they can be rejected.
Impact:
Emphasized due process and informed consent before confessional statements.
Courts began reviewing magistrate compliance with procedural safeguards more rigorously.
Case 5: Ain o Salish Kendra v. Bangladesh (Custodial Protection Cases, 2010, 61 DLR 201)
Facts:
Concerned confessions recorded under Section 164 CrPC during police custody of women victims of assault and dowry harassment.
Judgment/Reasoning:
Court held that magistrates must record confessions in a safe and neutral environment.
Statements given under fear, influence, or threat are not admissible.
Section 164 provides procedural protection for vulnerable witnesses in addition to accused.
Impact:
Expanded scope of Section 164 to victims’ statements in special cases.
Influenced procedural amendments in recording statements under Dowry Prohibition and Women & Children Protection Acts.
3. Key Judicial Principles from the Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness | Confession must be made freely, without coercion | Abdul Mannan (1972) |
| Magistrate Oversight | Magistrate ensures accused understands rights | Rafiqul Islam (1985), Taher Ali (2001) |
| Distinction from Police Confession | Only magistrate-recorded confession carries full evidentiary weight | Rafiqul Islam (1985) |
| Procedural Safeguards | Must ensure comprehension, absence of fear, and explanation of consequences | Shahidul Islam (1992), Taher Ali (2001) |
| Victim Statements | Section 164 also protects victims’ statements in special cases | Ain o Salish Kendra (2010) |
4. Conclusion
Section 164 CrPC is a critical safeguard in criminal justice: it ensures that confessions are voluntary, reliable, and legally admissible.
Judicial interpretation emphasizes:
Voluntariness – must be free of coercion or influence.
Magistrate’s role – independent verification and explanation.
Procedural compliance – language, comprehension, and informed consent.
Extension to victims – Section 164 statements protect vulnerable witnesses.
Overall: Section 164 serves as a cornerstone of procedural justice, balancing evidentiary needs with human rights protections in Bangladesh.
RELATED Blog
comments