Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jyotsna Sharma, J.
Smt. Manorama Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 6848 of 2023
Decided On : 12-10-2023
REJECTION - Victim's Restatement - I.P.C., 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act 1987 - Sections 323, 506, 354(kha) of I.P.C., 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act 1987
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to set aside the rejection of her application for recording her restatement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. before videography in a case involving allegations of molestation, disrobing, and exploitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no good reasons to record the victim's statement for a third time and dismissed her application, imposing a cost on the petitioner for unsuccessfully trying to use the law as a tool.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the victim's application for recording her restatement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. before videography.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that allowing multiple statements without necessary checks and balances would destroy the sanctity of such statements and frustrate the purpose behind them, and discouraged the practice of using the law as a tool.
Final Decision: The habeas corpus writ petition was dismissed, and a cost of Rs. 20,000 was imposed on the petitioner.
Key Points: - The court held there were no good reasons to record the victim's statement for a third time and dismissed the petition, imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioner. (!) - The judgment emphasizes the need for checks and balances and discourages the practice of recording multiple restatements under section 164 Cr.P.C. to prevent destruction of the sanctity of such statements. (!) (!) - While it is permissible for restatements to be recorded more than once in certain circumstances, routine or gratuitous repetition without good cause undermines the investigation and the integrity of the process. (!) - Previous orders (e.g., 16.05.2023 by CJM Agra) had rejected IO's third attempt to record the statement, noting two prior 164 Cr.P.C. recordings and questioning the need for a third. (!) (!) - The petition was filed under Article 227 challenging the rejection of the restatement recording; the court dismissed the habeas corpus petition accordingly. (!) (!) - The victim was given opportunity to present her side at trial; the misapplication of 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to bypass trial procedures. (!)
JUDGMENT :
1. 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:
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 recording her statement for the third
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
