S. 183 BNSS | Direction For Re-Recording Of Victim's Statement Can Be Given Only In 'Exceptional Circumstances': Allahabad High Court

"…the power is not a routine or an automatic power but is exercised by High Court or Supreme Court to prevent abuse of process, to secure ends of justice or rectify grave procedural irregularities that could lead to miscarriage of justice", a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Achal Sachdev remarked.

The Division Bench thus dismissed a writ petition filed by a Gang-rape victim who sought directions for re-recording her statements under section 183 BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 CrPC).

It was her contention before the HC that her statement had not been correctly recorded by the Magistrate, as it was a gross violation of the express provisions of Section 183 BNSS.

Perusing Section 183 BNSS, the Court noted that the primary purpose of this provision was to provide a safe, voluntary, and judicially supervised mechanism for recording confessions and statements during a criminal investigation.

On the specific issue of 'second' or repeated statements, the Court noted that the provision does not contemplate or authorize such a practice as a standard procedure.

"The purpose is to record a reliable, voluntary statement/confession once… There is no statutory mandate for multiple recordings of the same person's statement under Section 183 BNSS. Police statements under Section 180 BNSS (old Section 161 CrPC) can be recorded multiple times if needed during investigation, but magisterial statements under Section 183 BNSS are exceptional and meant to preserve evidence with higher reliability", the Bench remarked.

The Court added that in exceptional cases, such as where a prior statement under Section 183 was allegedly coerced, not voluntary, improperly recorded, or where fairness demands re-recording (e.g., new material facts, witness hostility, or serious procedural lapses), the Court may direct a fresh recording as part of HC's extraordinary jurisdiction.

It also said that in those cases, re-recording could be directed where the integrity of the original statement is seriously compromised, especially in sensitive cases involving victims (e.g., sexual offences, POCSO), where the statement carries significant weight for corroboration/contradiction at trial.

The Court added that the direction for re-recording the statement under Section 183 BNSS may be issued if the victim claims that the statement was not read over to him or her, as this raises serious questions about whether the procedural safeguards were followed.

However, the bench said this power is not to be exercised routinely. It remarked thus:

"High Court in exercise of it's extraordinary jurisdiction, if justified to rectify injustice, may issue directions for recording second statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. but it cannot be exercised as a general rule where victim alleges that her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was not read over to her or that she was not given an opportunity to confirm its correctness".

Furthermore, when the bench perused the victim's earlier statement, it noted that, after the statement was recorded, the victim/petitioner had read it and that she had given it without any duress.

"The statement of the victim/petitioner recorded by the Magistrate clearly shows that the petitioner had given the statement without any duress and had read the statement and thereafter had signed the statement and all the procedural aspects have been followed", it noted.

Therefore, the bench found no extraordinary circumstances warranting the re-recording of the statement. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed.