Chaini Parwani –
Published On: October 24, 2021 at 11:00 IST
The Allahabad High Court directed that if the statement of a Rape survivor recorded before a Magistrate is unlike her description recorded before the Investigation Officer (IO), then he cannot probe her again.
A Bench of Justice Samit Gopal noted that the IO cannot examine her referring to the two different descriptions given by her in the two statements and that in such situations, the IO also has no liberty to record her statements and move ahead with the probe further.
Justice Samit Gopal stated that “The statement made by the prosecutrix/victim under Section 164 of the Code before the Magistrate stands on a high pedestal and sanctity during the course of investigation than that of her statement recorded under section 161 of the Code by the Investigating Officer.”
In the Trial being heard by the Court, the prosecutrix/victim after presenting her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the IO levelling allegations of rape against the accused, had updated her description later in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate.
Further the IO again noted the statement of the prosecutrix/victim under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and examined her with regards to the highlighted difference in her statements and recorded the same.
The Court then observed that “The act of putting specific questions pertaining to the variations in the said two statements by the investigating officer is viewed with an impression of clearly challenging the authority of a Judicial Act. The IOs have clearly exceeded their Jurisdiction by proceedings to investigate in such a manner. The same appears to be with a sole purpose to frustrate the statements recorded by a Magistrate.”
While determining this particular point in its Judgment dated October 1, the Court informed the UP Director-General of Police to scrutinize the issue and direct suitable instructions so that the faith and supremacy of the Judicial Proceedings are perpetuated and they should not be disturbed by any act done during investigation.
Further the Court also commanded the Registrar (Compliance) of the Court and the State Government Counsel to direct this Notification to the UP Director-General of Police for its compliance and necessary action within a period of one month and submit a compliance report within one week thereafter.
Also Read: All you need to know about Laws against Rape in India
Understanding Rape in light of Landmark Judgements
Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC with Landmark Judgements