“Will Destroy The Sanctity”-Allahabad HC Imposes 20k Cost On Victim Seeking Recording Of Statement U/S 164 CrPC For The Third Time

The Allahabad High Court has held that a victim cannot make multiple requests for recording her statement a fresh under Section 164 CrPC. The Court held that though there is no bar on the Investigation Officer to move applications for recording statement under Section 164 CrPC a second or a third time, the victim cannot make such requests as it will destroy the sanctity of such statements.

“For certain good reasons, the statement under sections 164 Cr.P.C. can be recorded more than once. But that doesn't mean that victim or the I.O. can keep on giving such applications for recording of statements any number of times without any good cause. Doing so, will destroy the sanctity of such statements and in my view, shall frustrate the very purpose behind such statements,” held Justice Jyotsna Sharma.

Petitioner lodged an F.I.R. naming four persons including respondents 3 and 4 alleging molestation, disrobing and being put to mental, physical and economic exploitation. Case was registered 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. During investigation, statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded twice on different days. Almost 11 days after her second statement, petitioner moved an application stating that her earlier statements were not correctly recorded. Request for video-graphed recording of her statement under Section 164 CrPC was made, which was rejected.

The Court noted that similar application was moved by the Investigating Officer, which had already been rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, prior to the application of the petitioner. CJM had observed that on both the occasions, statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded by different judicial officers as every time similar allegations were made by the petitioner saying that the judicial officers did not write what was actually told by her.

The Court observed that law does not prevent Investigating Officer from moving an application for recording of statement of the witness/victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. for the second time or so on. However, the victim cannot keep on requesting fresh statement be recorded multiple times without any good cause as it will frustrate the purpose behind such statements.

“This is conceivable that there may be instances where some new fact may come to light during investigation and a second statement might become necessary. This is just to elaborate the point involved. In such circumstance, a second statement may be recorded. However, in case, such a practice is allowed to be routinized, without imposing necessary checks and balances, whole system shall crumble. In my view, if I.O. or the victim is given a free hand and things are left to their whims, the investigation may go haywire. The consequences can be far reaching. The system of law has to follow a discreet and prudent path. Any attempt to discredit the system must be foiled.”

The Court held that the victim/petitioner has full opportunity to place her case at the stage of trial as veracity of statements, attending facts and circumstances, including the victim's refusal to put her signature etc. can be dealt with at the time of trial, if required.

Accordingly, while dismissing the petition, the Court imposed a cost of Rs.20000 on the petitioner to be deposited in favour of the State to discourage such practice adopted by the petitioner.

Case Title: Smt. Manorama Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6848 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 383

Counsel for Petitioner: Upendra Kumar Pushkar

Counsel for Respondent: A.G.A., Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi

Click Here To Read/Download Order