The Allahabad High Court has held that the re-recording of a statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is not a routine procedure and can only be directed under exceptional circumstances where the integrity of the original statement is seriously compromised.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Achal Sachdev made these observations while dismissing a writ petition filed by a victim seeking a mandamus to record her statement for a second time before a Magistrate.
Background
The petitioner is the complainant and victim in Case Crime No. 320 of 2024, registered at Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, Azamgarh, involving various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Section 70(1) (sexual offences).
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to re-record her statement under Section 183 BNSS. This followed an order dated January 13, 2026, passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, FTC Court No. 01, Azamgarh, which had observed that such statements are ordinarily recorded only once and any direction for a second recording must come from the High Court or the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that her statement was not correctly recorded and that there were gross violations of the procedural safeguards prescribed under Section 183 BNSS.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that her statement had not been correctly recorded by the Magistrate. She claimed there was a violation of the express provisions of Section 183 BNSS, necessitating a fresh recording to ensure the procedural aspects were clarified.
The State, represented by the learned A.G.A., opposed the petition, maintaining that the procedural requirements had been duly met during the initial recording and that the petitioner had signed the statement after reading it.
Court’s Analysis of Section 183 BNSS
The Court conducted a detailed analysis of Section 183 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 164 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Bench noted that the provision mandates specific safeguards to ensure that confessions and statements are voluntary and free from coercion.
The Court observed:
“Section 183 BNSS acts as a judicial filter between police investigation and trial evidence, thereby capturing important statements/confessions in a protected, verifiable manner to aid truth-finding while safeguarding against abuse of power.”
Addressing the question of repeated statements, the Court clarified:
“The provision does not contemplate or authorize ‘second’ or repeated statements under this section as a standard procedure. The purpose is to record a reliable, voluntary statement/confession once, with evidentiary value… There is no statutory mandate for multiple recordings of the same person’s statement under Section 183 BNSS.”
The Bench further noted that while the High Court possesses extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS (Old Section 482 CrPC) to order a fresh recording, such power is exercised only in exceptional cases—such as where a prior statement was coerced, improperly recorded, or where new material facts emerge that compromise the integrity of the original recording.
Findings on the Petitioner’s Statement
The Court examined the certified copy of the petitioner’s statement recorded before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Azamgarh. Upon perusal, the Bench found that the statement was recorded based on the oral testimony of the victim, who had subsequently read the statement and signed it.
The Court remarked:
“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.”
The Bench concurred with the trial court’s finding that the petitioner failed to establish any “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify a departure from the general rule that such statements are recorded only once.
Decision
The Court concluded that the instant writ petition lacked merit as there were no grounds to suggest the original statement’s integrity was compromised.
“In the light of analysis given, we are of the opinion that there are no extraordinary circumstances warranting the re-recording of the statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. and hence the instant writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly liable to be dismissed.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
