Bombay HC directs State to make guidelines for investigating officers on how to record statements

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., after considering the issue of statements being copy pasted by the investigating officers even in serious offences, directed the State to come out with specific guidelines for the investigating officers and also in respect of, how to record the statements. The Court further, appointed Advocate Mukul Kulkarni as Amicus Curiae and directed him to collect data and suggest measures to be taken by the State Government to avoid situations of copy paste and to overall improve the quality of investigation.

In the present case, initially the accidental death was reported under Section 174 ¹ of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), and the age of the deceased was given as 17 years and 9 months. Further, when the FIR was made, the police officer who was recording it, had not taken note of the age of the deceased and therefore, he registered the offence under Section 306 ² of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Later the birth certificate of the deceased was fetched and then an offence under Section 305 ³ of IPC was added. Thus, an application was filed for quashment of the proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon arising out of the FIR registered with Erandol Police Station, Jalgaon, on 24-2-2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 352 ⁴, 294 ⁵, 504 ⁶ and 506 ⁷ read with Section 34 ⁸ of the IPC.

The Court noted that in the present case, even in the serious offence, the investigating officer who had recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 ⁹ of the CrPC, copy pasted the statements to an extent that the paragraphs started and ended with the same words. The Court also noted that in the present case, the only change in the statements was as per the relationship of the witness either with the deceased or the informant.

The Court opined that the culture of copy pasting statements was dangerous and in certain cases, might unnecessarily, give advantage to the accused persons, because of which, the seriousness of the genuine case might vanish. The Court stated that two witnesses could not give statements in an identical fashion. Further, the Court opined that it had noticed this even in cases under Section 498-A ¹⁰ of the IPC. The Court stated that the act of copy pasting statements raised an issue as to whether those witnesses were really being called by the police for a statement under Section 161 of the CrPC or not, as their statements were appearing in the charge sheet.

The Court noted that even in serious offences like Section 306 of the IPC, the statements were being copy-pasted and thus opined that it was high time to take cognizance of the issue suo moto and to consider, as to what are consider the shortcomings or difficulties for the investigating officer/officers when they record such copy-paste statements.

The Court noted that the charge against the applicants-accused persons was that they abetted the commission of suicide by a minor, which was a very serious matter, thus, the Court denied to grant any relief to the applicants. The Court opined that even in such serious matters if the copy-paste method was adopted, then it was not a good indication for the criminal justice system and therefore, it directed the State to come out with specific guidelines to the investigating officers and also in respect of, how to record the statements.

The Court dismissed the present application and appointed Advocate Mukul Kulkarni as Amicus Curiae and directed that he might collect data and suggest measures to be taken by the State Government to avoid situations of copy paste and to overall improve the quality of investigation.

The matter would next be listed on 27-6-2025.

[Amol Samadhan Nikam v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 1091 of 2025, decided on 29-4-2025]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Applicant: H.P. Randhir Advocate for Applicants.

For the Respondent: N.R. Dayama, A.P.P. for Respondent 1.