Back
No Second Chances as Routine: Allahabad HC Sets Bar High for Re-Recording Victim Statements
In a significant clarification on criminal procedure, the has ruled that victims cannot routinely demand a fresh recording of their statements under . A dismissed a by gang-rape victim Kirti Verma, emphasizing that such directions are reserved for truly exceptional circumstances. Justices Rajiv Gupta and Achal Sachdev delivered the verdict on , in .
From Azamgarh Assault to High Court Doors
The saga began with Case Crime No. 320 of 2024 at Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, Azamgarh, where Kirti Verma lodged a complaint under . Her statement under Section 183 BNSS—equivalent to the old —was recorded by a Magistrate. Verma later claimed it was inaccurately captured, violating procedural norms like reading it back to her.
She moved applications before the , on , and . The judge, on , refused, noting such statements are typically recorded once and re-recording requires High Court or Supreme Court intervention. Exercising the liberty granted, Verma approached the High Court, filing the writ in person.
Victim's Plea: 'My Words Were Twisted'
Appearing , Verma submitted a certified copy of her statement, arguing gross violations of Section 183 BNSS safeguards—such as failing to read it over, explain its evidentiary use, or ensure voluntariness. She insisted this procedural flaw demanded a for re-recording, without delving into case merits. The State, via the Additional Government Advocate, defended the original process.
Decoding Section 183: A Judicial Shield, Not a Repeat Button
The Bench delved deep into Section 183 BNSS, which empowers Magistrates to record confessions or statements during investigations—complete with warnings on voluntariness, audio-video options (especially for sexual offences or disabled persons), and forwarding to trial courts. Unlike police statements under
(old 161 CrPC), which can be reiterated, magisterial ones are
"exceptional and meant to preserve evidence with higher reliability."
The Court stressed no statutory provision for multiples:
"The provision does not contemplate or authorize 'second' or repeated statements under this section as a standard procedure."
High Courts'
powers allow intervention only for grave issues like coercion or lapses—think un-read statements in rape cases carrying trial weight. But routine claims? No dice.
They dismissed cited precedent as inapplicable. Crucially, scrutinizing Verma's statement revealed she had read and signed it voluntarily, with all safeguards intact.
Pearls from the Bench: Unpacking the Reasoning
On the provision's essence:
"The primary purpose of Section 183 of B.N.S.S. is to provide a safe voluntary and judicially supervised mechanism for recording confessions (by the accused) and statements (witnesses or the victims) during a criminal investigation... ensuring that these statements or confession are made freely and without coercion."
No blanket re-dos:
"Ordinarily no routine direction for second statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. can be given but under exceptional circumstances."
High bar for High Courts:
"High Court in exercise of it’s
... may issue directions for recording second statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. but it cannot be exercised as a general rule where victim alleges that her statement... was not read over to her."
Final scrutiny:
"Perusal of statement shows that statement was recorded... the victim/petitioner had read the statement... given the statement without any duress... all the procedural aspects have been followed."
Writ Dismissed: Justice Without Redundancy
"In the light of analysis given, we are of the opinion that there are no extraordinary circumstances warranting the re-recording of the statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. and hence the instant
lacks merit and is accordingly liable to be dismissed."
This ruling reinforces Section 183's role as a one-time trustworthiness checkpoint, balancing victim sensitivity (e.g., woman Magistrates for rape cases) with trial efficiency. For future cases, especially sexual offences, it signals courts will probe originals closely before greenlighting repeats—potentially curbing delays but urging Magistrates toward flawless execution. As reported in legal circles, this aligns with the BNSS's victim-centric upgrades over CrPC, without opening floodgates for revisions.
