B.

MULTIPLE STATEMENTS OF THE VICTIM CAN BE RECORDED IN RAPE CASES,

CONSIDERING THAT THE 164 STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM/PROSECUTRIX IS
ALREADY RECORDED BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT.

1. The counsel humbly submits that multiple statements of the victim can be recorded in rape
cases, considering that the 164 statement of the victim/prosecutrix is already recorded before the
Ld. Trial Court. The counsel bases the argument on two premises namely, first, that the Section
164 of Cr.P.C. does not impose any limitation with respect to the number of statements to be
recorded. Secondly, the exceptional circumstances of rape cases indicate that multiple statements
by the victim may be necessary for a clearer description of facts, and that the dynamics of child
sexual abuse is such that relying on a single statement by the victim might not reveal the facts in
their entirety.

[1.1] Section 164 of Cr.P.C. does not impose any limitation with respect to the number of
statements to be recorded.

2. The counsel humbly submits that Section 164 (5) of Cr.P.C. states that “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.” And s. 164 (5A) (a) states that “in cases punishable u/s 354,
354A, 354B, 354C, 354D…the Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the person against
whom such offence has been committed in the manner prescribed in sub-section (5), as soon as the
commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police.” As seen in the provision, there is no
statutory limitation on the recording of multiple statement of victim of rape cases.

3. Further, the court in the case Court in Its Own Motion v. State 1 held that neither POCSO nor any other
statute imposes a restriction on investigating agencies to record multiple statements. The court further
held that contradiction with initial statements of the minor cannot be seen as reasons to reject the
subsequent versions.2

[1.2] Multiple statements by the victim may be necessary for a clearer description of facts.

1
251 (2018) DLT 383
2
Ibid.
4. It is humbly submitted that the court in the Maksood Ahmad v. State of NCT of Delhi 3 held
that the statement of victim u/s 164 (5A) is not only mere evidence but rather it is an “emotional
release” that “communicates the impact on her dignity and self-worth.” Thus, the role of courts
as stated in the judgement is to adopt a sensitive approach towards the victim.4

5. Further, in the case law Court In Its Own Motion v. State5, the court held citing other international
judgement emphasized that children do not recount the incident in “one go but do so in piece meal”.
There are fears of embarrassment, family, stigmatization etc. and they act as barriers for a child
attempting to make a full disclosure of the case. 6 It was also emphasized by the court that the
contradiction of the statement of the child victim might not be malafide but a “symptom of abuse”. 7 Also,
in case of State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh 8, th4 court highlighted the need for a comprehensive
investigation, including multiple statements in order to ensure justice in cases of sexual assault.

6. Furthermore, as per the POCSO Model Guidelines issues by MoWCD, 9 it was emphasized that
“children rarely disclose sexual abuse immediately after the event. Moreover, disclosure tends to be a
process rather than a single episode and is often initiated following a physical complaint or a change in
behavior.”10 The court in Ashok Jaiswal v. State11, replying on the “Guidelines on Prosecuting Cases of
Child Sexual Abuse” by the Crown Prosecutor Service of England, emphasized that the child might not
give their “best and fullest” description of facts in the first attempt. 12 Thus, “minor variations in the
testimony of the child at various stages of trial does not detract from the veracity of the allegations
levelled against the accused.”13

3
W.P. (CRL) 336/2023
4
Ibid.
5
251 (2018) DLT 383
6
Ibid
7
Ibid.
8
2012 AIR SCW 3036
9
POCSO Model Guidelines, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, available at
https://wcd.nic.in/sites/default/files/POCSO-ModelGuidelines.pdf
10
Ibid.
11
CRL.A., 1127 of 2019
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid. See also, Narendra Kumar v. State, (2012) AIR SCW 3391, “The courts while trying an accused on the charge
of rape, must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get
swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses which are not of a
substantial character.”