Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Achal Sachdev, has clarified that directing a fresh recording of a victim's statement before a Magistrate is not a matter of routine and can only be exercised under exceptional circumstances. The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a complainant seeking re-recording of her statement, finding that all prescribed procedural safeguards had been duly followed during the original recording. "The power is not a routine or an automatic power but is exercised by High Court or Supreme Court to prevent abuse of process, to secure ends of justice or rectify grave procedural irregularities that could lead to miscarriage of justice," the bench observed.

The petitioner, a complainant and victim in a criminal case registered at Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, Azamgarh, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to re-record her statement before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.).

Also Read: Credible Eyewitness Testimony Sufficient For Murder Conviction Even Without Recovery Of Weapons: Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that her statement had not been correctly recorded by the Magistrate and that there had been a gross violation of the express provisions of Section 183 B.N.S.S. She further submitted that the petition was filed in compliance with liberty granted by an earlier order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC Court No. 01, Azamgarh, dated 13.01.2026, and was confined strictly to procedural aspects without seeking adjudication on merits.

The trial court, while disposing of the petitioner's applications for re-recording, had observed that a statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. is ordinarily recorded only once, and that any direction for re-recording could be issued only by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The petitioner filed a certified copy of her statement recorded before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Azamgarh, in support of her contentions. The offences in the underlying case were registered under Sections 70(1), 352, 351(1), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court examined the scope and purpose of Section 183 B.N.S.S., noting that it corresponds to Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and provides a judicially supervised mechanism for recording confessions and statements during investigation or before commencement of inquiry or trial.

The Court observed that "the primary purpose of Section 183 of B.N.S.S. is to provide a safe voluntary and judicially supervised mechanism for recording confessions (by the accused) and statements (witnesses or the victims) during a criminal investigation or even afterwards before inquiry or trial begins and this ensures that these statements or confession are made freely and without coercion and it carries higher reliability and evidentiary values as compared to ordinary police statements recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S."

On the question of re-recording, the Court stated that "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."

The Court further recorded that "there is no statutory mandate for multiple recordings of the same person's statement under Section 183 BNSS. Police statements under Section 180 BNSS (old Section 161 CrPC) can be recorded multiple times if needed during investigation, but magisterial statements under Section 183 BNSS are exceptional and meant to preserve evidence with higher reliability."

On the High Court's jurisdiction, the Court observed that "High Courts have supervisory powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS (old Section 482 CrPC) to intervene in criminal proceedings to prevent abuse, secure ends of justice, or correct grave errors." However, it clarified that "High Court cannot directly order or direct the recording of the second or additional statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. in the sense of compelling the Magistrate to record another statement from the same person as a routine or an investigative measure."

Regarding the conditions for exercising such extraordinary jurisdiction, the Court stated that "ordinarily no routine direction for second statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. can be given but under exceptional circumstances. High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, if justified to rectify injustice, may issue directions for recording second statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. but it cannot be exercised as a general rule."

On the facts of the present case, the Court noted that "perusal of statement shows that statement was recorded on the basis of oral statement of the victim and after recording of the statement the victim/petitioner had read the statement and it is also noted that the victim gave the statement without any duress."

Also Read: NSA Detention Permissible Against Accused In Custody When Release On Bail Poses Threat To Public Order : Allahabad High Court

The Court directed: "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 and is accordingly dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Kirti Verma, Petitioner in Person

For the Respondent: Government Advocate (G.A.) for the State of U.P.

Case Title: Kirti Verma Versus State of U.P.

Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC:43696-DB

Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3822 of 2026

Bench: Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Achal Sachdev