Clarification of the inadmissibility of police-recorded statements as substantive evidence and reversal of a trial court conviction; High Court decision binding on subordinate courts and affirming Supreme Court precedent in Renuka Prasad (2025)
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.A/157/2016 of MOTIBHAI MASARABHAI MEGHVAL (PAREGI) Vs STATE OF GUJARAT |
| CNR | GJHC240521662016 |
| Date of Registration | 10-02-2016 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat |
| Bench | HON’BLE Ilesh J. Vora and P. M. Raval |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts of the Gujarat High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; Evidence |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Renuka Prasad vs State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1074 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | An FIR under sections 498-A, 302, 316 and 201 IPC was lodged alleging that the appellant strangled and kicked his pregnant wife to death, then staged it as suicide. The trial court convicted him based largely on statements of hostile witnesses and testimony by the investigating officer recounting section 161 CrPC statements. On appeal, the High Court found no direct evidence of killing, no properly corroborated chain of circumstances, and held that section 161 CrPC statements cannot be used as substantive evidence. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of the Gujarat High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering quashing appeals and evidence-law disputes |
| Overrules | Conviction and sentence dated 4.1.2016 in Sessions Case No. 227 of 2015 (Deodar) |
| Follows | Renuka Prasad vs State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1074 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that statements recorded under section 161 CrPC by police officers have no evidential value to prove guilt; they are admissible only to contradict a witness under section 162 CrPC.
- Confirms that a trial court cannot convict on the basis of hearsay from hostile or formal witnesses without any independent eye-witness testimony.
- Emphasises that a presumption of marital strain in spousal homicides does not satisfy the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Demonstrates grounds for quashing convictions when circumstantial evidence is not independently or collectively established.
- Lawyers may cite this decision to challenge convictions based on section 161 CrPC statements and to press for higher standards of corroboration in circumstantial cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Analysis of Witness Testimony
- All key witnesses (family members, panchas, land-owner) either turned hostile or provided only hearsay about source of information.
- No direct or eye-witness evidence of kicking, strangulation or staging of suicide.
- Inadmissibility of Section 161 Statements
- Relied upon Renuka Prasad (2025) to hold that IO’s testimony repeating witnesses’ section 161 statements cannot constitute substantive evidence.
- Such statements may only be used to discredit a witness at trial under section 162 CrPC.
- Presumption vs Proof
- Rejected the trial court’s presumption that a husband must have killed his wife if found hanging, since proof beyond reasonable doubt was lacking.
- Chain of Circumstances
- Found the prosecution failed to prove a complete, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively to the appellant.
- Conclusion and Relief
- Quashed the conviction under sections 498-A, 302, 316 and 201 IPC; set aside the trial court order; acquitted the appellant.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- No credible eye-witness; witnesses admitted they learned of the incident by word of mouth.
- Panch witnesses did not support the case; key land-owner witness turned hostile.
- Section 161 CrPC statements recorded by the IO are inadmissible as proof of guilt.
- Trial court erred in presuming strained marital relations and cruelty without direct evidence.
Respondent (State)
- Trial court thoroughly analysed oral and documentary evidence (paras 28–30) and reached reasoned findings.
- Reliance on multiple witness depositions, including the complainant and family members.
Factual Background
A petitioner’s wife was found dead in a field hut in village Bevta. The FIR alleged that, after months of mental and physical harassment, the husband strangled and kicked her to death on 28.6.2014, and then tried to stage it as suicide. Investigation under Tharad Police Station CR No. I-155 of 2014 led to charges under sections 498-A, 302, 316 and 201 IPC. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and concurrent terms for related offences. The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted him.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 161 CrPC: Statements recorded by police during investigation are inadmissible as evidence to prove guilt.
- Section 162 CrPC: Such statements may be used only to contradict witnesses at trial.
- Sections 302, 316, 201, 498-A IPC: Charges quashed for failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- Both Hon’ble Justices Ilesh J. Vora and P. M. Raval concurred in the judgment. No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or guidelines were issued beyond applying established principles on section 161/162 CrPC and standards for circumstantial evidence.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overturned trial court conviction based on inadmissible section 161 statements.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirmed Supreme Court’s holding in Renuka Prasad (2025) on the limited evidentiary role of section 161 CrPC statements.
Citations
- R/CR.A/157/2016, High Court of Gujarat, judgment dated 25-08-2025.
- Renuka Prasad vs State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1074.