The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition said that there is nothing in law to prevent the IO from moving an application for recording of statement of the witness/victim under section 164 CrPC for the second time or so on.
For certain good reasons, the statement under Section 164 CrPC can be recorded more than once. But that doesn’t mean that the victim or the IO can keep on giving such applications for recording of statements any number of times without any good cause.
A Single Bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Smt Manorama Singh.
The petition has been filed by the petitioner with prayer as below:
“A. To set aside the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the Special Court SC/ST, District-Agra as in Case 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 videography has been rejected.
B. Issue a order or direction directing the Special Court SC/ST, District-Agra to record the re-statement of Victim/petitioner before the videographi in Case 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.”
The facts of the case are that 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.
On the basis of this information, Crime 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.
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 the application and dismissed the same, vide order dated 16.05.2023.
The Court noted that,
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 had 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.
The Court said that there is nothing in law to prevent the I.O 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. For certain good reasons, the statement under sections 164 Cr.P.C can be recorded more than once. But that doesn’t mean that the 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. 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 circumstances, a second statement may be recorded. However, in case, such a practice is allowed to be routineized, without imposing necessary checks and balances, the 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.
As far as veracity of the statements, the attending facts and circumstances, including the victim’s refusal to put her signature etc are concerned, the same can appropriately be dealt with at the time of trial, if required. Incidentally, this may be noted that the victim shall have all the opportunity to place her side before the trial court concerned, in case, the accused persons are put to trial, the Court observed.
In my opinion there were no good reasons to record the statement of the victim for a third time. The court concerned rightly dismissed her application. My opinion is that the petitioner unsuccessfully tried to to use the law as a tool in her hand. Such practice needs to be discouraged”, the Court observed.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition with the cost of Rs 20,000/- on the petitioner, which shall be deposited in favour of the State by furnishing a demand draft within three weeks. In case of failure to do so, the Registry shall issue a recovery certificate to the District Magistrate concerned, who shall take steps for recovery of the same, as arrears of land revenue. When the amount is deposited or recovered, the same shall be transferred in favour of the State.