Recording of witness statements through audio-video means is discretionary under law, but courts may order such measures to ensure transparency and protect individual rights during police investigations.

ORDER :

T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to direct the respondents to examine the petitioner in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District in the presence of an advocate of his choice and further record the same through audio-video electronic means and pass such other order.

2. As reflected in the notice dated 16.04.2025, which is annexed to the Writ Petition, the petitioner has been directed to appear before the SIT at the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, on 19.04.2025 at 10:00 hours, for the purpose of investigation. As evident from the record, the petitioner has been elected as a Member of Parliament representing the Rajampet Constituency. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the ruling party, driven by political vendetta, has targeted the petitioner with an intention to implicate him in the present case. However, as per the available record, the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused. Upon inquiry by this Court, the learned Advocate General informed that CCTV cameras have been duly installed within the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada where the statement of the petitioner is intended to be recorded."

3. Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Respondents/State.

4. Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the examination of the petitioner by the Police, there is a possibility of apprehension of potential physical abuse, including the possibility of being assaulted or manhandled. As such, it is requested to direct the Investigating Officer to record his statement through audio-video electronic means. He further submits that the recording of witness statements through audio-video electronic means is permissible under law and the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have issued directions for the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and these measures are intended to safeguard the personal liberty and dignity of not only the accused but also the witnesses, thereby ensuring a more transparent and accountable criminal justice process.

5. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , [ (2018) 5 SCC 311 ], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

“5. We have now taken up the issue for further consideration. An affidavit dated 21-3-2018 has been filed by the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) annexing thereto report of the Committee constituted by the MHA about use of videography in police investigation dated 22-11-2017. The Committee considered various issues including the present infrastructure and usage, concerns/problems raised by various States for use of videography during investigations, admissibility of electronic evidence in absence of a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, operational difficulties, lack of training, funding, forensic facilities. The Committee observed that though crime scene videography was a “desirable and acceptable best practice”, the mandatory videography required major issues being addressed. Videography may be done on “best effort” basis. The timeline should be different for different States and the Central Investigating Agencies.

xxxx”

6. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner further placed reliance on the decision i