Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XII: Information to the Police and Their Powers to Investigate
Section 164: Recording of confessions and statements
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial: [Provided that any confession or statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence:
Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.]
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody.
(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:— —I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. (Signed) A. B. Magistrate.‖ 1. Ins. by Act 13 of 2013, s. 15 (w.e.f. 3-2-2013). 2. Subs. by Act 22 of 2018, s. 12, for —section 376A section 376B, section 376C, section 376D‖ (w.e.f. 22-4-2018). 3. Subs. by Act 5 of 2009, s.13 (w.e.f. 31-12-2009).
(5) 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. [(5A) (a) In cases punishable under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), 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:
Provided that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the Magistrate shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement:
Provided further that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the statement made by the person, with the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator, shall be videographed.
(b) A statement recorded under clause (a) of a person, who is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, shall be considered a statement in lieu of examination-in-chief, as specified in section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) such that the maker of the statement can be cross-examined on such statement, without the need for recording the same at the time of trial.]
(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 164
-
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
Whether the trial Court as well as the High Court committed grave errors in facts as well as in law while appreciating the evidence available on record and convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged…
-
The State of Jharkhand v. The Indian Builders Jamshedpur
Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 705, if requires to be referred to a larger bench for reconsideration and authoritative decision in order to obviate…
-
Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. The State of West Bengal
The Revision Petition filed by the Appellant-accused against the order dismissing the discharge application filed by the Appellant in FIR No.50/2020 dated 19.03.2020 lodged with police station Bidhannagar North, was…
-
The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali
When victim herself has stepped into witness box, whether her examination can be done in piecemeal.
-
Thammineni Bhaskar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting and sentencing the appellant u/ss.302, 364 and 201 IPC for kidnapping and murder of the informant’s son.
-
Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors.
Allegation against the respondent nos.1 and 2 that they raped a minor girl. It is admitted that they never committed the acts together and always acted separately. In light of the controversy involved in the instant…
-
Manoj Tejraj Jain v. State of Gujarat
Challenge to the judgment of the High Court whereby the appeals filed by the appellants herein were dismissed against the judgment of the trial court convicting them for offences u/ss.25A and 29, Narcotic Drugs and…
-
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
Whether the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondents-accused persons in a case involving serious charges u/ss.302, 120B, and 34 IPC is perverse and legally unsustainable, warranting cancellation of bail.
-
Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan and Another
In the instant appeal, the father of the prosecutrix challenges the order of the High Court. By the said order, the sentence imposed on respondent no.2 herein was suspended till the final disposal of the appeal. Whether…
-
Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment relying on the confessional FIR filed by the appellant-accused himself and the medical evidence to uphold his conviction, however, altering it from s.302,…
-
Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
The appellant came to be convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable u/ss.450 and 376(2) of the IPC and s.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act]. Whether the High Court was…
-
Victim ‘X’ v. State of Bihar and Anr.
Allegations of torture and sexual exploitation against the respondent no.2-accused. She was granted bail by the High Court. Whether the grant of bail to the respondent no.2-accused has resulted into travesty of justice.
-
IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus
Issue arose as regards sentencing the accused; about the rehabilitation of the victim and her child; and about adopting measures for adolescent well being and child protection.
-
Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Whether the High Court while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction erred in upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
-
Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. The State of Gujarat Th. National Investigating Agency
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant is entitled for regular bail.
-
Renuka Prasad v. The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused persons based on the testimony of the IOs which was founded only on s.161, CrPC statements of the witnesses; whether present was a case…
-
Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for causing rape and murder of a child aged 3 years and 9 months.
-
Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras
Whether the charge of criminal contempt is proved against the appellants-contemnors beyond all reasonable doubt; whether the conviction of the appellants by the High Court for criminal contempt of Court and the sentence…
-
K.P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of A-15 under Sections 217, 218, Penal Code, 1860 and ss.3(2)(i), 4, SC/ST Act, 1989 and modifying the conviction and sentence of A-14, while…
-
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-A1 u/ss.363, 366, 376 and 201 r/w s.34, IPC and accused-A2 u/s.201 r/w s.34 and acquittin g them.
-
X Etc. v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.
Whether the High Court erred in quashing FIRs registered under the POCSO Act against the respondent no.1.
-
Ankit Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Whether the High Court has committed any serious error in law while granting anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Whether the allegations against the appellant, as they stand, constitute an offence, u/ss.376(2)(f), 417 and 506 IPC; and whether the case of the appellant is fit for discharge u/s.227 CrPC, 1973.
-
Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. The State of Maharashtra
Issue arose as to whether the conviction u/s.302 IPC could be converted into s.304 Part I or Part II IPC.
-
State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of judgment and order of the Special Court acquitting the respondents for offences under Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
-
Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P.
Whether the conviction of the appellant ought to have been recorded under the IPC or whether the provisions of the Special law, i.e., Section 42A of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, would prevail…
-
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for the kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and murder of a minor is sustainable.
-
Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another
Matter pertains to the liability of the appellant to be prosecuted for committing rape upon the complainant by giving her a false promise of marriage; and the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing…
-
Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Another
Whether, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case and the position of law apropos to the sanction for prosecution, the High Court ought to have exercised its powers u/s.482 of the CrPC to quash the…
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
Does the Evidence Act, 1872 prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent witness; Does the Evidence Act treat evidence of a child on the same footing as any other witness;…
-
Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in finding that there were specific allegations in the FIR and Chargesheet even after dropping the charge of Section 376, IPC in order to maintain the criminal proceedings against the…
-
Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. The State of Maharashtra
Whether on the strength of the evidence of the four witnesses, the appellant-accused can be linked with the offence; whether it can be said that the charge against the accused of committing murder of the deceased stood…
-
Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
The accused-appellant’s petition u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR u/ss.366, 376 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 was dismissed by the High Court.
-
Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana
Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction u/s.401 r/w. s.397 of the CrPC; Whether Proviso to s.372 of CrPC creates a…
-
Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
(1) Whether the High Court acted well within the contours of its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC in rejecting Ajay Malik’s quashing petition; (2) Whether the High Court fell in error in rejecting the Compounding…
-
Manish Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
The appellant herein has sought to quash proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506, Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r),3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the…
-
X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Issue arose as regards accused being enlarged on bail in rape case by the High Court, when the victim and the mother who was the eye-witness to the incident were yet to be examined.
-
Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the conviction under Section 302/201 IPC can be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi
Whether FIR u/ss.376(2)(n) and s.506 IPC lodged against the appellant should be quashed; whether allegations in the FIR are correct; whether relationship between the parties was consensual in nature.
-
Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra
Whether the conviction of the appellant and the death sentence awarded for the alleged murders of his wife, daughter and mother were justified.
-
Manik & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
Appellants-convicts are members of the police force and the allegation against them is misuse and abuse of their powers, in resorting to custodial torture of victim-S and tampering with evidence.
-
Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The appellant was convicted for offences punishable u/ss. 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s.34 of IPC and s.5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) awarding death penalty…
-
Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for protection under Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as his statement was recorded earlier at the pre-summoning stage as a witness for…
-
Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement
Matter pertains to the grant of the benefit of the proviso to s.45(1) of the PMLA to the applicant being a well educated and accomplished woman, who has remained Member of Parliament and a Member of Legislative Council.
-
Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of A.P.
The question arose whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond all manner of doubt the fact that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant; and whether the courts below were justified in…
-
Ratnu Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the Courts below erred in convicting appellant u/s.302, IPC for committing the murder of his stepmother by relying upon the alleged extra-judicial confession of appellant before PW1 and ‘last seen together’…
-
Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR u/s. 376(2)(n) and s.506 of IPC on 06.09.2018 against the appellant. The charges u/s. 376(2) (n) and s.506 of IPC were framed against the appellant and the application for discharge…
-
Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.
The respondents-accused were arrested for the alleged offences under section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957. The High Court…
-
Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Need for a comprehensive sentencing policy. Trial against the accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was conducted by the judicial officer in utmost haste and the accused was denied due…
-
Selvamani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police
Appellant was one of the five accused persons who were found guilty of committing the offence of gang rape and was convicted under Section 376(g) and 506(1) of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of…
-
Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT
Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder.…
-
Alauddin & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Matter pertains to correctness of the order convicting the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 302/149 IPC when the statements in evidence full of omissions and contradictions and the evidence of last seen…
-
XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
High Court, if justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered against him u/ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC.
-
Anil Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the entire proceedings of the case against the accused on the basis of a Settlement Agreement where the complainant in the FIR was not made a party.
-
Velthepu Srinivas and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) and Anr.
The courts below, if justified in convicting the four accused u/ss. 302/34 IPC and imposing sentence for life for committing murder of the victim.
-
Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
The two appeals are filed by the appellant-former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi seeking bail in the prosec utions arising from a case registered by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Penal…
-
P. Sarangapani (Dead) Thr. Lr Paka Saroja v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the conviction of appellant-accused no.1 u/s. 7 and s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
-
Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar
Whether the High Court erred in confirming the conviction and death sentence passed by trial court against appellant-accused for offences punishable u/ss.302, 376, IPC and s.4, POCSO Act, 2012, despite serious lapses in…
-
Ilavarasan v. The Superitendent of Police &
Issue arose as regards the conduct of advocates as to whether they are capable of certifying self respect marriages u/s. 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and whether the Suyammariyathai marriage-self-respect marriage…
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam
In cases relating to offences arising out of the Vyapam Scam, respondents-accused filed applications seeking direction to supply a Hindi translation of the charge sheet filed by the appel lant in English language.…
-
Bhagw An Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak
Whether the Single Judge of the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondent-accused in connection with the FIR registered against them by the appellant-uncle of the minor girl alleging gang rape, threat…
- Harendra Rai v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
- Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei
- P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
- A. Srinivasulu v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of
- Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) v. Hussain
- Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr. v. State of Andhra
- State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas Mishra
- Ms. X v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
- Ravi Dhingra v. The State of Haryana
- Vikas Rathi v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
- Ajai Alias Ajju Etc. Etc. v. The State of Uttar
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Suneetha Narreddy & Another v. The Central Bureau of Investigation and Others
- P. Ponnusamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu
- The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Dr. Maroti S/O Kashinath Pimpalkar
- Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K & Anr.
- Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Subramanya v. State of Karnataka
- Vijaya v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police
- Makhan Singh v. The State of Haryana
- Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr.
- Sanjay Puran Bagde & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Himanshu Kumar and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
- Sadhna Chaudhary v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
- State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh
- Ms. P Xxx v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr
- Manoj & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Ms. P v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
- Jafarudheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala
- Nahar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- The State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh & Anr.
- Attorney General for India v. Satish and Another
- Bijender @ Mandar v. State of Haryana
- Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India
- Musunuri Satyanarayana v. Dr. Tirumala Indira Devi & Ors.
- Manoj Mishra @ Chhotkau v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Prashant Singh Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.