The Allahabad High Court has held that courts can direct the fresh recording of a victim’s statement before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) only in exceptional circumstances. Courts cannot treat such re-recording as a routine exercise.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Achal Sachdev clarified that the power to order a second magisterial statement is not automatic. Courts may invoke it only to prevent abuse of process, secure the ends of justice, or correct grave procedural irregularities that could lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Victim’s Plea for Fresh Statement Dismissed
The Court delivered the ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by a gang-rape victim. She sought a direction to re-record her statement under Section 183 BNSS, which corresponds to Section 164 of the CrPC.
The petitioner alleged that the Magistrate had not properly recorded her earlier statement. She also claimed non-compliance with mandatory requirements under the provision.
Scope of Section 183 BNSS
The Bench explained that Section 183 BNSS ensures a safe and voluntary process for recording confessions and statements during investigation. A Magistrate supervises the process to ensure fairness and reliability.
The Court made it clear that the law does not permit repeated magisterial statements as a standard practice. Authorities ordinarily record such a statement only once. The provision aims to preserve evidence with greater credibility due to judicial oversight.
Police Statements vs Magisterial Statements
The Bench distinguished between police statements and magisterial statements.
Investigating officers may record statements under Section 180 BNSS (earlier Section 161 CrPC) multiple times during investigation. However, a Magistrate ordinarily records a statement under Section 183 BNSS only once. The law assigns higher evidentiary value to such statements because of the safeguards involved.
When Can Re-recording Be Allowed?
The High Court stated that courts may permit re-recording only in limited situations. They must exercise extraordinary jurisdiction with caution.
Courts may consider re-recording in cases involving allegations of coercion, involuntariness, improper recording, or serious procedural lapses. They may also intervene when fairness demands it. This may happen if new material facts emerge, a witness turns hostile, or the earlier statement appears seriously compromised.
The Bench observed that such concerns may carry added weight in sensitive cases, including sexual offences and matters under the POCSO Act.
The Court also noted that a request could arise if a victim claims that the Magistrate did not read over the statement before obtaining the signature. Such an allegation may raise concerns about procedural compliance. However, the Court cautioned that even this ground cannot justify re-recording as a general rule.
No Exceptional Circumstances in Present Case
In the present case, the High Court examined the earlier statement. It found that the record clearly stated that the victim had read the statement, confirmed its voluntariness, and signed it.
The Bench held that the Magistrate had complied with the required safeguards. It found no extraordinary circumstance that justified interference. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Kirti Verma vs State of Uttar Pradesh
