Can Investigating Officer cross-question on Rape Victim's recorded statement u/s 161 & 164 of CrPC?: HC answers

  

The Allahabad High Court has recently decided on whether Investigating Officer can question Prosecutrix/Victim regarding variations in statements given under Sec. 161 and Sec. 164 of CrPC.

The single-Judge Bench of Justice Samit Gopal in a significient ruling has settled on whether IO can proceed with the investigation further once the victim in a Rape Case has recorded her statement before the Magistrate and it is different from her statement recorded before him/ her.

Brief Facts of Case

In the present petition, the victim after giving her statement under Section 161 CrPC before the IO leveling 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 cross-questioned her with regard to the said variations in her statements and recorded her answers accordingly.

High Court's Observation 

Upon examining the case, the Court on the outset observed:

 “The statement made by the victim under section 164 of the Code before the magistrate stands on a high 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 Court further stated that putting questions to the prosecutrix/victim with regards to the change in the version by her in the statements under Section 161 of the Code and in the statement under Section 164 of the Code, clearly shows disrespect to the courts and gives impression of challenge to the authority of a judicial act. 

It said: 

"By putting questions to the prosecutrix/victim in her second statement under Section 161 of the Code after recording of the statement under Section 164 of the Code relating to the different versions in the said two statements, the Investigating Officer cannot frustrate the same and also make an attempt to make the purpose of the said exercise look a farce…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 Investigating Officers 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."

 Lastly, the Court directed the DGP to issue necessary guidelines within a period of one month and also asked the state counsels and registry to submit a compliance report within one week thereafter.

In view of the above, the Court thus 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 the investigation.

The Court demanded fast compliance and necessary action within a period of one month and also asked to submit a Compliance Report within one week thereafter.

Read Order Here: 

 

source ; .latestlaws.com

Social media is bold.


Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  


    We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure