Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Tuesday, May 13, 2025

Suo Motu Cognizance Of Increasing Trend Of Police Officers Copy-Pasting Witness Statements During Criminal Investigations: Bombay HC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Mon, May 12, 25, 15:35, 13 Hours ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 17682
Amol Samadhan Nikam vs Maharashtra took suo motu cognizance of the increasing trend of police officers ‘copy-pasting’ witness statements during criminal investigations which is definitely most worrying.

It is definitely most alarming to note that none other than the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Amol Samadhan Nikam and Ors vs State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application No. 1091 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:BHC-AUG:13097-DB that was pronounced as recently as on April 29, 2025 took suo motu cognizance of the increasing trend of police officers ‘copy-pasting’ witness statements during criminal investigations which is definitely most worrying.

Frankly speaking, one has to be candid enough to acknowledge honestly that police cannot be ever absolved from its wrong doing and those men/women in uniform who are culpable on this count must be definitely most strictly punished so that we don’t see repeatedly a recurrence of such most unfortunate trend that has been on an alarming rise as has been observed by various courts from time to time because it makes a huge mockery of our criminal justice system which most seriously jeopardizes the unflinching faith that people tend to usually pose on our courts and so also the legal process!

It is ostensibly most concerning to note that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Smt Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Deshmukh minced absolutely just no words to warn in no uncertain terms that such a practice is dangerous and may unnecessarily give an advantage to the accused persons.

What also certainly cannot ever go unnoticed nor escape our unremitting attention in any way is that the Division Bench made these most serious damning observations after examining a police charge sheet in a case that involved allegations that the accused had abetted the suicide of a minor 17-year-old girl.

We also need to keep in mind that the Division Bench observed that several witness statements recorded during the investigation were literally made copy-paste, with entire paragraphs starting and ending with the exact same words. It is really most encouraging to learn that the Division Bench has directed the Maharashtra government to issue guidelines addressing the concerning practice of investigating officers copy-pasting witness statements in charge sheets even in serious cases. The Division Bench observed striking similarities in witness accounts that raises serious bona fide doubts about the very integrity of the investigation process.

Most of all, the Division Bench was clearly most unsparing in observing that if the police were cutting corners in this way even in serious cases, it was not a good sign for the criminal justice system. Very rightly so! It would be pertinent to mention that this leading case that is garnering media attention from all corners stemmed from an FIR that had been registered at Erandol Police Station in Jalgaon district that was initially recorded as an accidental death under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). It also cannot go unnoticed that the Division Bench was hearing a petition that had been filed by some persons who were seeking to quash an FIR that had been registered against them for alleged abetment to the suicide of a 17-year-old youth.

At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by Hon’ble Smt Justice Vibha Kankanwad for a Division Bench comprising of herself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Deshmukh of Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
Present Application has been filed for quashment of the proceedings in Sessions Case No.94 of 2024 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon arising out of the First Information Report (for short the FIR) vide Crime No. 43 of 2024 registered with Erandol Police Station, Erandol, District Jalgaon, on 24th February 2024, for the offence punishable under Sections – 306, 352, 294, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Needless to say, the Division Bench then states in para 2 that:
Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for respondent No.1 after waiving service for respondent No.1.

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 observing that:
After disinclination is shown to grant any relief to the applicants, learned Advocate for the applicants seeks withdrawal of the Application. There is no hurdle in allowing the withdrawal of the Application.

Most strikingly and most alarmingly, it is worth noting that the Division Bench minces absolutely just no words to observe unequivocally and specifically in para 4 holding that:
However, after going through the entire charge-sheet, we have noticed that even in serious offence, the investigating officer who had recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has literally made copy-paste of the statements. Even the paragraphs start with the same words and end with the same words. The culture of copy-paste statements is dangerous and may, in certain cases unnecessarily, give advantage to the accused persons. In such circumstances, the seriousness of the genuine case may get vanished. Two witnesses cannot give statement in identical fashion.

The only change is as per the relationship of the witness either with the deceased or the informant. We have noticed this in many cases, including the cases under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. We may also wonder, as to whether really those witnesses are called by the police for statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not, but their statements would appear in the charge-sheet.

Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench then deems it fit to point out further encapsulating in para 5 what constitutes the cornerstone and true nucleus of this notable judgment postulating precisely, pertinently and pragmatically that:
In one more matter we had made observations in respect of the copy-paste statements. But, when now we are coming across with such copy-paste statements in serious offence like Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is then high time to take cognizance of the issue suo moto and to consider, as to what are those short comings or difficulties for the investigating officer/officers when they record such copy-paste statements.

In fact, in the present case initially the accidental death was reported under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At that time, the age of the deceased was given as 17 years and 9 months. It is then continued in other documents i.e. spot panchnama, postmortem report. Unfortunately, when the FIR was taken, the concerned police officer who was recording it, had not taken note of the age of the deceased and therefore, it appears that he registered the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Later on, it appears that the birth certificate of the deceased was fetched and then offence under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code has been added. That means, as on today the charge against the accused persons is that they have abetted the commission of suicide by minor, which is of course a very serious matter, and with the story in the FIR it is much more serious and therefore, we were not inclined to grant any relief to the applicants. Therefore, when even in such serious matters if this copy-paste method is adopted, then it is not a good indication for the criminal justice system and therefore, we are taking cognizance and want the State to come out with specific guidelines to the investigating officers and also in respect of, how to record the statements.

Broadly speaking, it would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then directs succinctly in para 5 holding precisely that:
We appoint learned Advocate Mr. Mukul Kulkarni as Amicus Curiae. He may collect data and suggest measures to be taken by the State Government to avoid such situations of copy-paste and to overall improve the quality of investigation. He may prepare a complete Petition and file it on or before 20th June 2025.

What’s more, the Division Bench then further directs in para 6 of this notable judgment that:
Place the matter for further consideration on 27th June 2025.

Finally, we see that the Division Bench then draws the curtains of this brilliant judgment by holding and directing in para 7 for sake of clarity stating precisely and clearly that:
As aforesaid Criminal Application No. 1091 of 2025 stands dismissed as withdrawn as against all the applicants.

In a nutshell, there can be just no gainsaying that this most enlightening judgment deserves to be definitely emulated by all the High Courts in India in its entirety in similar such cases! To say the very least, this is definitely imperative to ensure unfailingly that the innocents are not implicated in false manner in any case which primarily defeats the very purpose for which courts exists, genuine cases are not undermined in any manner whatsoever and so also it must be underscored that the accused do not gain unnecessarily as has been observed quite glaringly in this leading case because this is what happens in reality in many cases which compelled the Division Bench of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in this leading case! There can be definitely just no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top