Back
After Section 183 BNSS, IO Cannot Record Victim's : Grants Bail
In a significant ruling, the has held that once a victim's statement is recorded before a under , the cannot independently record a of the victim. The court granted to the accused in a POCSO case, criticizing the 's practice.
The case arose from an FIR registered on , at the for the offence of kidnapping under against unknown persons. The complaint was filed by the mother of a 17-year-old girl who had gone missing. During investigation, the girl was traced and her statement was recorded before the on , under Section 183 BNSS. In that statement, she made no allegations of sexual assault, stating she had left home after being scolded and stayed at a Darga in Murugamalla for three days.
However, on , the recorded a of the victim, in which she allegedly accused the petitioner, Murali, of sexually assaulting her. Based on this subsequent statement, a was filed against Murali and his relatives under various provisions of the BNS and the .
Apprehending arrest, Murali sought before the , which was rejected. He then approached the High Court under .
The Core Legal Question
The central issue before Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty was whether the could independently record a of the victim after her statement had already been recorded by the Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS.
Court's Strong Observations
The High Court expressed serious reservations about the 's conduct. It observed that the sanctity of the procedure under Section 183 BNSS was compromised when the IO recorded a contradictory statement without producing the victim before the Magistrate.
Key Observation:
"Even if the had to record the of the victim girl, after her statement was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 before the , he ought to have produced the victim girl before the for recording her and he could not have proceeded to independently record her ."
The court further stated,
"The very sanctity of recording the statement under Section 183 BNSS, 2023, by the
has been frustrated in the present case by the
and this practice cannot be appreciated."
Decision and Implications
Considering the nature of the allegations in the FIR and the initial statement under Section 183 BNSS, the court found merit in the petitioner's plea for . The court allowed the petition and directed that Murali be released in the event of his arrest, subject to conditions including executing a of Rs 1 lakh with two , appearing before the trial court regularly, and not .
This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to the for recording victim statements and checks the practice of investigating officers independently creating contradictory evidence after a judicial statement has been recorded. It serves as a reminder that any deviation from the prescribed process undermines the credibility of the investigation.
