LI Network
Published on: October 14, 2023 at 22:48 IST
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a victim is not permitted to repeatedly request the recording of her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The court emphasized that while there is no prohibition on the Investigation Officer (I.O.) submitting applications to record statements under Section 164 CrPC multiple times, the victim cannot do so, as it would undermine the sanctity of these statements.
Justice Jyotsna Sharma stated, “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.”
The case involved a petitioner who had filed an FIR naming four individuals, alleging molestation, disrobing, and various forms of exploitation. The victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had been recorded twice during the investigation. Subsequently, the petitioner requested that her earlier statements were inaccurately recorded, and she sought to have her statement recorded through video recording, which was denied.
The court noted that a similar application had been submitted by the Investigating Officer, which had already been rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Agra. The CJM had observed that the petitioner had consistently claimed that the judicial officers did not accurately document her statements.
The court clarified that the law does not prohibit the Investigating Officer from making a second application to record a witness or victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, the victim cannot repeatedly request the recording of fresh statements without good reason, as it would undermine the purpose of such statements.
The court further stated that any attempt to discredit the legal system must be prevented. The victim has the opportunity to present her case during the trial, where the veracity of statements and related circumstances can be addressed if necessary.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitioner’s request and imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioner to discourage this practice.
Case title: Smt. Manorama Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
