S. 180 BNSS | Police Must Record Witnesses' Version In Their Own Language, Not Put Inculpatory Leading Questions: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to issue necessary directions to all police officers to ensure that while recording statements under Section 180 BNSS, they do not put inculpatory leading questions to witnesses and instead record the version stated by the witness in his or her own language, except for seeking clarification on certain points.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal issued the direction while dealing with a bail application wherein it took exception to the audio/video recording of statements made by the first informant and his wife under Section 180 BNSS.
The bench found that the police officer who recorded the audio/video of the statement under Section 180 BNSS, instead of recording the version of the incident as per the first informant and his wife, tried to suggest leading questions that are inculpatory in nature.
Terming this practice as "absolutely incorrect", the bench observed thus:
“The purpose of criminal justice administration is simply not to punish the guilty but also save the innocent person, therefore, the police should not try to suggest the material to witness against the accused. Instead thereof, the statement under Section 180 BNSS should be written in the language and version stated by the witness, except certain clarification”.
Accordingly, the Court directed the DGP, Lucknow, to issue necessary directions to all police officers that, while recording statements under Section 180 BNSS, they should not suggest inculpatory questions to the accused.
"They should simply write the version stated by the witness in his/her own language except seeking clarification on certain points", the Court clarified.
Briefly put, the accused in the present case is facing dowry death charges. At an earlier hearing, the Court had directed the State to produce the audio/video recordings of the statements of the first informant and his wife recorded under Section 180 BNSS.
The Court had also sought instructions regarding the call detail records of the deceased's sister-in-law and the integration of the MedLEapr digital platform with the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS).
The Investigating Officer was also directed to remain present before the Court along with the doctor who conducted the post-mortem.
Pursuant to those directions, the Investigating Officer informed the Court that during the investigation the call detail records of the deceased's sister-in-law had not been obtained.
After the Court's direction, the records were procured, but they did not reveal any call from the deceased or her in-laws; therefore, the allegation that the deceased had called her sister-in-law one day before the incident regarding dowry harassment could not be established.
The officer also apprised the Court that although MedLEapr is not integrated with CCTNS, the post-mortem report can be accessed through CCTNS upon a request being made to the Health Department.
On the merits of the bail application, the Court noted that the deceased had died after consuming a poisonous substance and that the FIR came to be lodged only after receipt of the viscera report around three months later.
It also noted the absence of any explanation for the delay, the discrepancies between the statements of the first informant and his wife, and the lack of evidence corroborating the allegation that the deceased had called her sister-in-law a day before the incident.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court granted bail to the applicant.
However, observing that issues relating to the transfer of data between MedLEapr, CCTNS and CIS required further examination, the Court kept the matter pending for that limited purpose.
It requested the Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, and the Additional Director General (Technical), U.P. Police, to appear through video conferencing on the next date of hearing to assist the Court in resolving the technical issues.
Case - Aatish Alias Krishnkant v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 510
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 510