Allahabad High Court takes strong cognisance of legal provisions not being followed while recording statements of rape victims in Uttar Pradesh, twice within 3 months

Prayagraj, (Uttar Pradesh), October 27: In a second strong emphasise within 3 months by Allahabad High Court against the Uttar Pradesh Police and its investigation, the presiding Judge came down heavily on “legal provisions not being followed”.

In a verdict that comes as a major setback to Uttar Pradesh police, already reeling under pressure of being accused of heightened lawlessness by the opposition, the Allahabad High Court has barred the police investigation officer from interrogating rape victim again once she has recorded her statement before a magistrate even if it is different from the statement recorded before an Investigating Officer.

The court also added that even specific questions to the victim pertaining to the two different versions given by her in the two statements is also barred. In such a situation, the IO also cannot record her statements and has to proceed with the investigation further, the court said.

The court delivered the significant verdict in a case in which victim after giving her statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the IO levelling allegations of rape against the accused, had changed her version later in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code before the magistrate. The IO then recorded the statement of the victim again under Section 161 of the Code and put specific questions to her with regards to the said variations in her statements and recorded her answers to the said questions.

"The statement made by the victim under section 164 of the Code before the magistrate stands on a higher pedestal and sanctity during the course of investigation than that of her statement recorded under section 161 of the Code by the investigating officer. 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,” Justice Samit Gopal observed while delivering the judgment.

It directed the Uttar Pradesh DGP to look into the said new trend of investigation and issue suitable guidelines so that the sanctity and authority of the judicial proceedings are maintained and they should not be frustrated by any act done during investigation. The court also directed the Registrar (Compliance) of the court and the state government counsel to communicate this order to the DGP for its compliance and necessary action within a period of one month and submit a compliance report within one week thereafter.

Earlier also on August 11 this year, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of Allahabad High Court had ordered on similar lines. He had even directed the Uttar Pradesh DGP and Principal Secretary, Home Department to issue guidelines to all district police chiefs to comply with the provisions within two months.

Then the High Court has expressed its displeasure that in a “majority of cases” the legal provisions mandating that the statement of a rape survivor be recorded by a woman officer and that too through audio-video electronic means were not being followed by the investigation officers.

The court had also noted that the practice of recording a second statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. then too, after recording her statement under Section 164 which was on the “higher side.” And in some cases, “conclusions are drawn by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, ignoring the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C,” it said. The High Court then too had clearly said that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. will prevail over the statement under Section 161.

Then too the court had observed: “In a criminal offence, one of the established canons of just, fair and transparent investigation is the right of accused as well as victim, therefore high responsibility lies upon the Investigating Officer not to conduct an investigation in tainted and unfair manner, which may legitimately lead to a grievance of accused that unfair investigation was carried out with an ulterior motive. It must be impartial, conscious and uninfluenced by any external influence.”

It is being seen that Courts in Uttar Pradesh have been correcting time and again the manner in which the Uttar Pradesh police has been going about its chores on a daily basis. These observations, the statistics which is coming which shows that Uttar Pradesh has been observing a lot of law and order issues, especially in relation to atrocities against women and the grievance that normal citizens and the opposition have been levelling against the present dispensation – all together shows that the government under the present CM has not been able to curb lawlessness and in fact the law and order situation is now worse then ever.