PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has said that if the statement of the rape victim recorded before the magistrate is different from her earlier recorded statement investigating officer (IO), so he cannot interrogate her again.
It also said that the investigating officer cannot put specific questions relating to the two different versions made by him in the two statements. In such a situation, even the IO cannot record his statement and proceed with further investigation, the court said.
In the case being heard by the Court, the accused/victim after giving his statement under section 161 criminal procedure code (CrPC) had changed his statement in his statement recorded under section 164 of the Code before a magistrate later, before leveling the charge of rape against the accused. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer re-recorded the statement of the accused/victim under section 161 of the Code and asked him specific questions regarding the above differences in his statements and recorded his answers to the said questions.
Giving this decision, Justice Samit Gopal “The statement made by the accused/victim under section 164 of the Code before a magistrate stands at a higher position and sanctity during the course of the inquiry than his statement recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 of the Code. ”
The court observed, “The act of the Inquiry Officer placing the specific question relating to the variation in the said two statements is viewed with the presumption of expressly challenging the authority of a judicial act. has thus exceeded its jurisdiction. It appears so with the sole purpose of falsifying the statements recorded by a Magistrate.”
The court, while deciding this specific point in its judgment on October 1, directed the DGP of UP to look into the said new trend of inquiry and issue suitable directions so as to maintain the sanctity and authority of judicial proceedings and they were disappointed. Don’t be Any action taken during the investigation.
Further, the court directed the Registrar (Compliance) of this court and the State Government counsel to communicate this order to the UP DGP for compliance and necessary action within a period of one month and submit the compliance report within a week thereafter. also instructed.
It also said that the investigating officer cannot put specific questions relating to the two different versions made by him in the two statements. In such a situation, even the IO cannot record his statement and proceed with further investigation, the court said.
In the case being heard by the Court, the accused/victim after giving his statement under section 161 criminal procedure code (CrPC) had changed his statement in his statement recorded under section 164 of the Code before a magistrate later, before leveling the charge of rape against the accused. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer re-recorded the statement of the accused/victim under section 161 of the Code and asked him specific questions regarding the above differences in his statements and recorded his answers to the said questions.
Giving this decision, Justice Samit Gopal “The statement made by the accused/victim under section 164 of the Code before a magistrate stands at a higher position and sanctity during the course of the inquiry than his statement recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 of the Code. ”
The court observed, “The act of the Inquiry Officer placing the specific question relating to the variation in the said two statements is viewed with the presumption of expressly challenging the authority of a judicial act. has thus exceeded its jurisdiction. It appears so with the sole purpose of falsifying the statements recorded by a Magistrate.”
The court, while deciding this specific point in its judgment on October 1, directed the DGP of UP to look into the said new trend of inquiry and issue suitable directions so as to maintain the sanctity and authority of judicial proceedings and they were disappointed. Don’t be Any action taken during the investigation.
Further, the court directed the Registrar (Compliance) of this court and the State Government counsel to communicate this order to the UP DGP for compliance and necessary action within a period of one month and submit the compliance report within a week thereafter. also instructed.
.