Section 164 statements are not substantive evidence; acquittal cannot be reversed without unreasonable trial findings.

A statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is not substantive evidence and may be used only for corroboration or contradiction. Where the trial court had already assessed the FIR and material evidence and found the oral testimony unreliable, further reliance on that statement would not justify disturbing the result. In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the trial judge's appraisal of credibility and the accused's presumption of innocence, and may interfere only if the acquittal is unreasonable or contrary to the evidence. On that standard, interference and retrial were not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal and directing retrial on the basis that the trial court had not taken into account a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: A statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is not substantive evidence. It can be used only for corroboration or contradiction. The trial court had already considered the first information report and the material evidence, and had rejected the oral testimony as unreliable and untruthful. In such circumstances, additional reliance on the Section 164 statement could not have altered the result. In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court was required to review the evidence with due regard to the trial judge's appraisal of witness credibility, the presumption of innocence, and the accused's entitlement to the benefit of doubt. The acquittal was not shown to be against the evidence or legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the acquittal or ordering retrial.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is not substantive evidence, and an appellate court cannot set aside an acquittal unless the trial court's view is shown to be unreasonable or contrary to the evidence, keeping in mind the presumption of innocence and benefit of doubt.

---