This article has been written by Khushi Mishra, a 3rd year law student from Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University.
FACT OF THE CASE
The petitioners in this case were Kajal and Another, who filed the petition against the State of U.P. and its officials, including the principal Secretary of the State and other concerned authorities.
The petitioners in this case contended that the investigating officer was under a duty to record the statement of a specific witness during an ongoing investigation. However, the Investigating Officer refused to do so, which led the petitioners to file a petition, seeking an order to compel the Investigating Officer to record that witness’s statement.
The Investing Officer, however, maintained that the decision regarding which witness statements are to be recorded rests within the officer’s discretion, based on the relevance and necessity of those statement s for the investigation. The Investigating officer argued that the witness in question was not crucial for the investigation and their testimony was not deemed necessary to further the investigation.
ISSUES
The central issue in this case was whether a witness can be mandated, under Section 183 of the Bihar Police Act, 2007, to have their statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. Section 183 generally pertains to the powers of the police in the investigation process, but the Investigating Officer to record the statement of any particular witness.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
The petitioners contended that Section 183 of the Bihar Police Act, which deals with the powers of the police in the investigation process, mandates the investigating officer to record the statement of all relevant witnesses, including the one they had requested to be examined.
They argued that the Investigating officer was acting improperly by not recording this particular witness’s statement, and they sought a direction from the court to compel the Investigating Officer to do so.
RESPONDENT ARGUMENT
The respondent contended that the Investigating Officer cannot be forced to record the statement of a specific witness under Section 183 B.N.S.S., as it is within the discretion of the investigating agency to decide which witness to record and when. The state argued that it is not mandatory for the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the prosecutrix under this section unless the Investigating Officer deems it necessary, as it falls within their investigation process.
Furthermore, the State raised the issue that the prosecutrix was not traceable at that time, making it impossible to record her statement or conduct her medical examination. This was cited as a reason for not proceeding with the applicant’s request.
COURT’S READING
The court examined the provisions of Section 183 of the Bihar Police Act, 2007, which deals with the powers of the police during investigations. However, the Section 183 does not impose an absolute duty on the Investigation Officer to record the statement of any specific witness.
The court noted that the Investigation Officer has discretionary powers when it comes to deciding which witnesses statements are relevant or necessary for the investigation.
Discretion of the Investigation Officer
The court emphasized that the Investigating Officer has the authority to determine which witness statements are necessary for the Investigation. This includes the power to asses the relevance and materiality of the testimony.
The court further clarified that the Investigating officer cannot be forced to record the statement of a particular witness based solely from the petitioners, especially if the Investigating Officer believes the witness’s statement is not necessary or relevant for the investigation.
Protection of the Investigating Officer’s Discretion
The court reiterated that investigations are to be conducted objectively and that an Investigating Officer is expected to act in accordance with the law, guided by the facts of the case, not based on external pressure or specific witness’s statement would interfere with the officer’s discretion, which is protected under the law.
No Compulsion Under Section 183
The court ruled that Section 183 does not impose an obligation on the Investigating Officer to record every statement requested by a party. Therefore, the Investigating Officer’s discretion remains intact, and they cannot be forced to act in a manner not warranted by the facts or the needs of the investigation.
Precedent Issue
In this case, the Court deliberated whether an Investigating Officer can be legally compelled to record the statement of a particular witness, as suggested by the petitioners. The Court examined whether such a forceful direction could be issued, considering the discretion granted to investigating officers in criminal investigations.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
Judicial Oversight
While an Investigating Officer has discretion, the judiciary can intervene if it is established that the Investigating Officer’s discretion has been exercised in bad faith, or if there is an egregious failure to follow the law. However, unless there is a clear abuse of power or failure to adhere to legal norms, the Court cannot compel the Investigating Officer to take specific actions during the investigation.
Freedom of Investigation
This case reiterates the principle that the investigative process is within the purview of the Investigating Officer, who has the discretion to determine the relevance of evidence, including witness statements, this principle has been consistently upheld in various judgements, emphasizing the need for police officers to act independently while investigating cases.
Relevance to Witness Statements
Courts have historically emphasized that the relevance of witness statements is a matter for the Investigating Officer to determine. Forcing an Investigation Officer to record a particular witness’s statement would interfere with the investigative process and the officer’s judgement, which has been recognized as improper.
JUDGEMENT
After hearing both sides and reviewing the case, the court acknowledges that applicant no.1 and applicant no. 2 are now married, but the main issue is that applicant no.1’s statement and medical examination have not been done yet. The government lawyer says applicant no. 1 is missing, which is why these steps haven’t been completed.
The court notes that it is the police’s job to decide which witness’s statements to record, and they cannot be forced to record a specific statement. Similarly, since applicant no. 1 is not available, she cannot be medically examined at this time.
Therefore, the court has decided to dispose of the case and directs applicant no. 1 to appear before the police. The police must then ensure her statement is recorded. During, this process, the police must treat her respectfully, without harassment or threats. A female constable should accompany her during these steps to ensure her safety and dignity. The police chief must ensure that applicant no. 1 is protected from any harassment by her family during this time. The court will decide on her custody later once her statement is recorded.
ANALYSIS
In this case, the Applicants Kajal and Another sought direction from the court to the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the prosecutrix (applicant no.1) under Section 183 B.N.S.S., and to get her medically examined. This request was made on the grounds that the prosecutrix was not being cooperated with during the investigation.
On the other hand, the State (respondent) raised objections, arguing that the Investigating Officer cannot be compelled to record the statement of a specific witness under Section 183 B.N.S.S., as this falls within the discretion of the investigating agency. The state also stated that the prosecutrix was untraceable at the time, so the statement could not be recorded nor the medical examination conducted.
CONCLUSION
The Kajal and Another vs. State of U.P. case primarily underscores the discretionary powers of the Investigating Officer in determining the course of an investigation, including the recording of witness statements. While the court declined to issue directions to the Investigating Officer regarding the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 B.N.S.S., it highlighted the importance of fair treatment and protection of the prosecutrix during the investigation, emphasizing the role of the State in ensuring her security and dignity throughout the process. The case thus balances the discretion of the police with the fundamental rights of the victim to be treated fairly and without coercion.
Sources~
- B.N.S.S. 2023
- High court case analysis.com
- Allahabaadhighcourt.in
