not be sufficient to discard it. It was observed that the Court ought to receive it with caution and if there are other circumstances on record which lend support to the truth of the evidence of such witnesses, it can be acted upon. During the investigation the police officer, sometimes feels it expedient to have the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This happens when the witnesses to a crime are closely connected with the accused or where the accused are very influential which may result in the witnesses being gained over. The 164 statement that is recorded has the endorsement of the Magistrate that the statement had been made by the witness. The mere fact that the Police had reasons to suspect that the witness might be gained over and that it was expedient to have their statements recorded by the Magistrate, would not make the statements of the witnesses thus recorded, tainted. If the witness sticks to the statement given by him to the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no problem arises. If the witness resiles from the statement given by him under under Section 164 in the committal Court, the witness can be crossexamined on his earlier statement. But if he sticks to the statement given by him under section 164 before committal enquiry and resiles from it in the Sessions Court, the procedure prescribed under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, will have to be observed. It is for the Court to consider taking into account all the circumstances including the fact that the witness had resiled in coming to the conclusion as to whether the witness should be believed or not. The fact that the police had Section 164 statement recorded by the Magistrate, would not by itself make his evidence tainted.
