Chapter XXXV
Section 463 CrPC: Non-compliance with provisions of section 164 or section 281
New Law Update (2024)
Section 532 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Any Court (including appellate, reference, and revision courts)
Punishment
Procedural – Appeals / Revision
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) If any Court before which a confession or other statement of an accused person recorded, or purporting to be recorded under Section 164 or Section 281, is tendered, or has been received, in evidence finds that any of the provisions of either of such sections have not been complied with by the Magistrate recording the statement, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), take evidence in regard to such non-compliance, and may, if satisfied that such non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits and that he duly made the statement recorded, admit such statement.
(2) The provisions of this section apply to Courts of appeal, reference and revision.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 463(1)
This sub-section empowers a court to accept a confession or statement, even if the Magistrate failed to fully comply with the procedural rules of Section 164 or 281 CrPC during its recording. However, the court must be convinced that this procedural lapse did not harm the accused’s defence and that the statement was genuinely made by them.
Section 463(2)
This part clarifies that the curative powers granted by Section 463 are not limited to trial courts. Courts hearing appeals, references, and revisions also have the authority to apply these provisions, ensuring that minor procedural errors do not unduly impede justice at any stage.
Landmark Judgements
Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (1977):
The Supreme Court emphasized that while Section 463 CrPC allows for curing minor procedural irregularities in recording confessions under Section 164, it cannot be used to rectify fundamental defects or omissions that undermine the voluntariness or truthfulness of the confession. Magistrates must ensure strict compliance with Section 164’s safeguards.
Paras Ram v. State of Haryana (1994):
This judgment reiterated that Section 463 is intended to address formal or technical defects in the recording of statements or confessions and not to condone a complete disregard of the essential requirements of Section 164 CrPC. The court must be satisfied that the accused was not prejudiced and that the confession was indeed voluntarily made.