Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Jyotsna Sharma, J.
Manorama Singh – Petitioner
versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No.6848 of 2023
Decided on 12.10.2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Habeas Corpus Petition – There is nothing in law to prevent I.O. from moving application for recording of statement of witness/victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for the second time or so on – For certain good reasons, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be recorded more than once – But that doesn’t mean that victim or I.O. can keep on giving such applications for recording of statements any number of times without any good cause – Doing so, will destroy sanctity of such statements – Petitioner, while moving petition under Article 227, conveniently concealed fact that earlier an application was moved by I.O. for recording her statement for third time and same was rejected – There were no good reasons to record statement of victim for third time – Court concerned rightly dismissed her application – Petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/-. (Paras 7, 8, 10 and 11)
Result: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Jyotsna Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Pushkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with prayer as below:—
“A. To set aside the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Learned Special Court SC/ST, District-Agra as in Case Crime No. 178 of 2023 under sections 323, 506, 354(kha) of I.P.C., 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act 1987 (Amendment 2015) at Police Station-New Agra, District- Agra on the application dated 22.05.2023 filed by (victim)/petitioner for recording her restatement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. before video graphy has been rejected.
B. Issue a order or direction directing the Learned Special Court SC/ST, District-Agra to record the re-statement of Victim/petitioner before the videographi in Case Crime No. 178 of 2023 under sections 323, 506, 354(kha) of I.P.C., 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act 1987 (Amendment 2015) at Police Station- New Agra, District- Agra.”
3. The relevant facts of the case are as below:—
The petitioner lodged an F.I.R. naming four persons including respondents 3 and 4 with the allegations that she was molested, disrobed and was put to mental, physical and economic exploitation. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the opposite party no.3 had taken Rs. 1,50,000/- from her, giving her a false assurance for securing a job and now, his wife, father and brother have been threatening her and not letting her continue with her PhD course etc.
4. On the basis of this information, Crime No. 178 of 2023 under sections 323, 506, 354(kha) of I.P.C., 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act 1987 (Amendment 2015) at Police Station-New Agra, District-Agra, was registered and investigated upon. During the course of investigation, the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 29.04.2023. Thereafter, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded for the second time on 11.05.2023. The victim-first informant moved an application, almost 11 days after her second statement i.e. on 22.05.2023, saying that earlier statements were not correctly recorded. She said that the Magistrate did not write what was told by her, Therefore, her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. may be recorded once again with a videography of the proceedings. This application was dismissed on 22.05.2023.
5. From the perusal of the counter affidavit, following further facts are revealed. Before the application was moved by the victim for recording of her statement a third time, the I.O. had moved another application for the same purpose. The C.J.M heard on this application and dismissed the same, vide order dated 16.05.2023. Paper no.60 is the copy of the order (dated 16.05.2023) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
6. From perusal of the facts as given in the counter affidavit as well as the copy of the order dated 16.05.2023, this is amply clear that the court rejected the application of the I.O., observing that the statement of the complainant have already been recorded two times earlier. On both the occasions, statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded by different judicial officers. Every time the victim threw similar allegations against the judicial officers, saying that they did not write what was actually told by her. The Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that it does not appeal to reason that both the officers were interested in pressurizing the victim and kept recording the wrong statements. The Chief Judicial Magistrate also observed that as the judicial officers had given a mandatory certificate that ‘the statement’ was given by her and recorded by them, hence, they cannot be questioned.
7. From the papers on record this has come to light that the petitioner, while moving this petition under Article 227, conveniently concealed the fact that earlier an application was moved by the I.O. for recordi
There is nothing in law to prevent I.O. from moving application for recording of statement of witness/victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for the second time or so on.
The court emphasized the need for necessary checks and balances in recording statements under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and discouraged the misuse of the law.
A victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be recorded without the investigating agency's sponsorship to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
The court declined to direct the re-recording of the petitioner's statement under Section 164 CrPC, holding that such a direction would interfere with the due process of law and that the petitioner w....
A request to re-record a statement under Section 164 CrPC must be substantiated by clear evidence of coercion or duress, which was not established in this case.
Re-recording of statements under Section 183 BNSS not routine; High Court directs only in exceptional cases of grave procedural lapses, coercion or compromised voluntariness to prevent miscarriage of....
The court emphasized that the trial court should consider the statement of the petitioner No. 1 and conclude whether the offences have been committed or not.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of the victim to have her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. without the intervention of the prosecution agency, as per the ame....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
