The Delhi High Court has dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of a man prosecuted for rape, holding that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot replace substantive testimony at trial.
The complainant died before she could depose and face cross-examination. The prosecution relied on her police complaint, magistrate-recorded statement, medical findings and a suicide note. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav said those materials created a strong possibility supporting the allegation, but criminal liability requires admissible evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court explained that a Section 164 statement ordinarily serves to corroborate or contradict a witness; it does not itself become substantive evidence when the maker is unavailable for examination. Medical evidence, including recorded injuries, could have supported testimony had it been given, but could not independently cure that evidentiary gap.
Finding no perversity in the trial court’s acquittal, the High Court dismissed the appeal and discharged the bail bonds.