Grants While Ordering Reform In Police Statement Recording Procedures Nationwide
The has granted to a man accused in a , while simultaneously issuing a scathing critique of police investigative practices. Presided over by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, the court mandated that the , issue clear instructions to all officers to cease the practice of using leading questions when recording statements under .
Case Background
The applicant, Aatish (alias Krishnkant), faced charges under Section 85 and 80(2) of the and the following the death of his wife on . According to the defense, the deceased consumed a poisonous substance. Notably, an was lodged only three months after the incident, specifically following the receipt of a . The applicant asserted that there was no explanation for this significant delay and argued that the evidence presented against him—specifically alleged phone calls made by the deceased to her sister-in-law—lacked factual support.
Legal Analysis and Police Reform
During the hearing, the court reviewed audio and video recordings of witness statements. Justice Deshwal observed that the police officer recording the statements had essentially dictated the narrative to the witnesses, using leading, incriminating questions rather than capturing the witnesses' own versions of events. The court emphasized that the objective of the criminal justice system is not merely to secure convictions but to protect the innocent from coached or coerced testimony.
Beyond the procedural concerns, the court identified a critical technical gap in the justice system’s digital infrastructure. It noted that the MedLEapr platform, used for medical records, was not seamlessly integrated with the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) or the Case Information System (CIS). To address these technical hurdles, the court has kept the matter pending to oversee the integration of these databases, summoning the Deputy Director General of the and the Additional Director General (Technical) of the for further consultation.
Key Observations
The court underscored the importance of integrity in the investigative process:
-
"The purpose of is simply not to punish the guilty but also save the innocent person, therefore, the police should not try to suggest the material to witness against the accused."
-
"The statement under Section 180 BNSS should be written in the language and version stated by the witness, except certain clarification."
-
"The police officer who recorded the audio/video of the statement under Section 180 BNSS, instead of recording version of the incident as per the first informant and his wife tried to suggest which is in the nature . This is absolutely incorrect."
Court’s Decision
Taking into account the three-month delay in filing the and the lack of corroborated evidence, the court allowed the application, requiring the applicant to furnish a and . The court directed that the trial proceed without delay, while the broader technical issues regarding data transfer between police and health department platforms remain under judicial supervision. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that investigation methods align with the fundamental standards of fairness and digital transparency.