FOZIA PERVEEN vs JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, KHUSHAB and another
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the Area Magistrate to record her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner alleged that she had been previously abducted by the respondent and forced to record a statement under coercion. Upon escaping, she approached the Magistrate to record a fresh statement, but the Magistrate refused. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is legally barred from recording a second statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly when the petitioner claims the initial statement was recorded under duress. The Lahore High Court held that there is no statutory bar preventing the recording of a subsequent statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, especially where the petitioner asserts that the prior statement was not voluntary. Consequently, the Court set aside the Magistrate's order refusing to record the statement and directed the Magistrate to record the petitioner's statement in accordance with the law, establishing the principle that a victim of coercion is entitled to have their true statement recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is there a legal bar to recording a second statement of a witness or victim under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a Magistrate refuse to record a statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, solely because a prior statement was already recorded?
- Does a claim of coercion regarding a previously recorded statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitle a petitioner to have a fresh statement recorded?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.-Though the instant .Petition; the petitioner seeks a direction to the Area Magistrate to record, the statement of the petitioner under section 164, Cr.P.C. Who particularly stated that she was abducted by respondent Muhammad Ijaz and forcibly got her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Under coercion and after getting rid out of the clutches of Muhammad Ijaz, the petitioner appeared before the Investigation Officer who produced her before the Magistrate and the Magistrate refused to record her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no-bar under the law to record second statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Particularly, in the peculiar circumstances as narrated above. Reference may be placed upon the judgment reported as Fozia Shabbir y. Additional Session Judge, Lahore arid 8 others PLD 2006"Lah.
304.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
5. The learned Magistrate in his order dated 16-8-20d6 has not advanced any cogent reasons to refuse recording of second statement of the petitioner under section 164, Cr.P.C. A bare perusal of section 164, Cr.P.C. Does not indicate that the statement of petitioner cannot be recorded under this section, if it already stands recorded particularly, when, in the present ease, the petitioner herself urging, that when she was previously produced before the Magistrate for recording of her statement, she was not a free agent. She was abducted by the respondents and was forced to make a statement on 7-2006. (Although, that , has been recorded but the learned Magistrate on the other hand dismissed the application for recording the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.), The moment, she got opportunity, she joined her parents and narrated to them what happened with her. As there is no bar" in recording her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is allowed and order of the learned Magistrate dated 16-8-2006 is set aside.
6. The concerned learned Magistrate is directed to record the statement of the petitioner under section 164, Cr.P.C. Strictly in accordance with law.
7. Disposed of accordingly.
Cited by 5 cases
- Mst. Hira Bibi vs State etc 2022 PLJ Lahore 302, 2022 PLD Lahore 545
- Mst. Hira Bibi vs The State etc 2022 [M] CLR 611
- Nirma Shahzadi vs The State etc 2021 LHC 7699
- Nirma Shahzadi vs The State and others 2023 PCRLJ 316
- Mst. NASREEN BIBI alias TAHIRA PARVEEN vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 8 2008 YLR 2650