Section 164 CrPC statement is not substantive evidence and cannot sustain kidnapping conviction without independent proof.

A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be used only for corroboration or contradiction. On the material described, the prosecutrix was not examined in court and the only reliance was on her Section 164 statement, which did not by itself implicate the accused in the kidnapping-related offences. As the statement merely suggested his presence after the kidnapping had already occurred, it was insufficient to establish participation in the offence. The conviction was therefore not sustainable, and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be treated as substantive evidence against the appellant and, on the material on record, whether the appellant's conviction for kidnapping-related offences was sustainable.

Analysis: The only material relied on against the appellant was the statement recorded under Section 164. Such a statement is not substantive evidence and can be used only for corroboration or contradiction. The prosecutrix was not examined in court, and her Section 164 statement, by itself, did not implicate the appellant in the kidnapping. The statement only suggested that he was present after the kidnapping had already been completed, which was insufficient to establish his participation in the offence.

Conclusion: The Section 164 statement could not be used as substantive evidence against the appellant, and the conviction was not sustainable. The finding is in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellant's conviction was set aside and he stood acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not substantive evidence and cannot, by itself, sustain a conviction in the absence of independent evidence linking the accused to the offence.

---