General provision

BNSS s. 180, corresponding to CrPC s. 161

BNSS s. 183, corresponding to CrPC s. 164

POCSO provision

s. 24, with s. 26

s. 25, with s. 26

Recorded by

A police officer, so far as practicable a woman officer not below sub-inspector

A Magistrate; under the BNSS, so far as practicable a woman Magistrate in sexual offence cases

Place

The child's residence or place of choice

Before the Magistrate

Manner

As spoken; with a trusted adult present; interpreter, special educator, audio-video where possible

AS SPOKEN BY THE CHILD, notwithstanding the Code; the same s. 26 safeguards

Accused's advocate

Not present

Expressly excluded by the proviso to s. 25(1)

Signature

Not signed by the maker: BNSS s. 181, corresponding to CrPC s. 162

Recorded under the Magistrate's procedure

Copies

Supplied to the accused with the final report

Also supplied to the child and parents under s. 25(2)

Use at trial

ONLY to CONTRADICT the child, in the manner the law prescribes

To CORROBORATE or CONTRADICT the child's evidence

Substantive evidence?

No

No

§ Recording and use

Recording. Under Section 24, at the child's home or place of choice, by a woman officer so far as practicable, not in uniform, with no contact with the accused and no night detention, and with the Section 26 safeguards.

Use at trial. Under Section 181 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 162 of the Code, a statement to the police during investigation may be used only to contradict the witness, in the manner provided by the law of evidence, and not otherwise.

Omissions. In Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012, the Supreme Court held that an omission in the police statement may amount to a contradiction only where it is so material that it goes to the root of the matter.

§ Recording and use

Recording. Under Section 25 of POCSO and Section 183 of the BNSS: as spoken by the child, without the accused's advocate, and with the Section 26 safeguards, including audio-video recording where possible.

Use at trial. It is not substantive evidence. It may be used to corroborate the child's evidence, under the provision of the Sakshya Adhiniyam corresponding to Section 157 of the Evidence Act, or to contradict it, under the provision corresponding to Section 145.

R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2013) 14 SCC 266. The Supreme Court held that a statement under Section 164 is not substantive evidence and can be used only to corroborate or contradict the maker's testimony in court.

Why it carries weight. It is recorded by a neutral judicial officer, early, in the child's own words, and without the police present in the room, which makes it harder to dismiss as coached or coerced.

§ Hostility, retraction and improvement

• Retraction at trial. Where a child who gave a clear account to the Magistrate retracts in court, the earlier statement cannot itself convict, but it shows the court the earlier account and invites inquiry into why it changed: pressure, reconciliation, or the passage of time.

• The hostile witness. In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, (1976) 1 SCC 727, the Supreme Court held that the evidence of a hostile witness is not wiped out; the credible part may be relied on.

• Other evidence. Medical, forensic and digital evidence, and the evidence of the person to whom the child first disclosed, may still prove the foundational facts, after which Section 29 operates.

• Improvements. Where the child adds significant allegations at trial that are absent from both earlier statements, without explanation, the court must weigh them carefully; minor variations in a child's account are natural.