top of page
Discrepancies between FIR and subsequent statement under section 164 CrPC not a ground for discharge
Hazrat Deen Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
About/from the judgment:
The Supreme Court observed that discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent statement under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of trial.
Such discrepancies may be a defence during the trial, the Court noted.
In this case, a charge sheet was filed implicating the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 354 and 376 and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The allegation against him was that he sexually abused the prosecuterix. The Allahabad High Court had dismissed his revision petition against the order of the Trial Court which dismissed his revision petition.
Before the Apex Court, the accused contended that the FIR does not disclose offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
The court noted that, though the FIR is the initial document, the statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) made allegations which tantamount to offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
"Discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent statement under Section 164 of the CrPC may be a defence. However, the discrepancies cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of trial.", the bench observed.
Therefore, the bench upheld the order dismissing the discharge petition.
Read the Judgment
Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!
Formats for use
bottom of page