Allahabad High Court Questions State's Challenge To Minor Rape Victim's Second Statement, Insistence On Polygraph Test
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Wednesday came down heavily on the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, after finding that his personal affidavit in a case involving a minor rape victim contained 'shocking' inaccuracies and concealed vital facts from the Court. While seeking personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary (Home), UP Govt, the HC also expressed shock at...
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Wednesday came down heavily on the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, after finding that his personal affidavit in a case involving a minor rape victim contained 'shocking' inaccuracies and concealed vital facts from the Court.
While seeking personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary (Home), UP Govt, the HC also expressed shock at the State's decision to challenge an order of the court allowing a minor rape victim's plea to re-record her statement.
A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani has sought the explanation on the following issues:
- how such an affidavit came to be filed by the SP; and
- why the State is insisting on a polygraph test of the victim and her father despite the circumstances already recorded by the competent court while directing re-recording of her statement.
For context, the bench was dealing with a writ plea filed by the complainant–petitioner seeking a mandamus to transfer the investigation in the Abduction case against the named accused. It was claimed that the respondent-authorities were not proceeding in a fair manner.
On November 17, 2025, the High Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur to file a personal affidavit indicating what investigation had been carried out after the lodging of the FIR on October 22, 2024.
In the affidavit, the SP indicated that an application for a polygraph test of the victim and her father was pending for consideration before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Balrampur. The police justified this move by citing two contrary statements given by the victim.
However, during the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner exposed a glaring discrepancy in the SP's affidavit. It was pointed out that the application for the polygraph test (of the victim and her father) had, in fact, already been rejected by the court on December 1, a day before the SP swore and verified his affidavit.
Taking this submission on record, the High Court observed thus:
"Thus, at the very outset, it emerges that the affidavit which has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur is a false affidavit indicating the pendency of the application for polygraph test...without even having cared to go through the complete facts of the case"
The Court described this as the 'first indication' of how 'shocking' the affidavit is. Apart from this, the Bench also expressed deep concern over the State's adversarial stance toward the victim.
The Bench then turned to what it termed the 'second shocking aspect' of the matter.
Essentially, the victim's first statement under Section 183 BNSS was recorded on October 28 last year. Later, she moved an application before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Balrampur seeking re-recording of her statement.
She submitted that because of the pressure exerted by the accused and the police earlier, she could not give the correct statement regarding the offence of rape committed against her.
The Special Judge, POCSO, on January 8 allowed this plea and directed that the victim's statement be re-recorded. Pursuant to this, her fresh statement was recorded on March 19 wherein she categorically stated that she had been sexually assaulted by the accused.
Despite this, the Court found it 'strange; that the State chose to challenge the Special Judge's order directing the re-recording of her statement. The said challenge is presently pending in the HC.
The Bench said it could not understand how the State could be 'aggrieved' by an order that merely directed re-recording of the victim's statement in the midst of an ongoing investigation.
"It could have been another aspect of the matter that the accused could have challenged the said order but we fail to understand as to by what stretch of imagination, the State has chosen to challenge the said order", the bench remarked.
The Court further questioned the logic of the police authorities insisting on a polygraph test of the victim and her father, after the victim had already clarified her stance.
The Bench observed that once the competent court accepted that the earlier statement was recorded under pressure and allowed a new statement where the offence of rape is made out, "there does not appear to be any occasion for a polygraph test to be conducted".
Thus, considering the aforesaid shocking aspects of the matter, the Court called for a personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary (Home), UP within a week. The matter is now listed for December 15.
Case title - Anjan Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others