The Bombay High Court has once again raised concerns over the widespread practice of "copy-pasting" witness statements by investigating officers in criminal cases. Terming it a "menace," the court directed the Maharashtra government to take corrective measures to ensure the integrity of investigations.
Case Background and Judicial Observations
A division bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh made these observations while hearing Criminal Application No. 1276 of 2023. The application was filed by Rahim Sadroddin Shaikh and others against the State of Maharashtra and another respondent. After the court indicated its disinclination to grant relief, the applicants sought to withdraw the application, which was permitted.
During the hearing, the bench examined witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court noted discrepancies in the statements, which appeared to be copied verbatim, including identical punctuation and phrasing. This raised doubts about the authenticity of the investigation.
Read also:- MP High Court Upholds Minor Girl’s Choice to Continue Pregnancy, Bars Stay with Accused Partner
The court directed the investigating officer, Grade Police Sub Inspector Dhanraj Maharu Rathod, to appear before it. In his affidavit, Rathod admitted to errors in recording witness statements. He explained that due to a typographical mistake, the phrase "माझी पत्नी" (my wife) was incorrectly included in the statement of a witness unrelated to the informant.
Rathod further stated that he was unfamiliar with electronic devices and relied on assistance from other police personnel. He also mentioned his impending retirement in seven months and tendered an unconditional apology.
Read also:- Kerala High Court to Decide: Does Hindu Wife Have Claim Over Husband’s Property for Maintenance?
The bench emphasized the seriousness of criminal investigations and the need for accurate witness statements:
"Investigation of a crime has to be done seriously, and the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC, when reduced into writing, should reflect the language used by the witness. The law does not contemplate copy-paste statements."
The court highlighted its previous concerns about this practice, noting that identical statements undermine the credibility of investigations. While accepting Rathod's apology due to his imminent retirement, the bench urged the state government to address the issue:
"We expect the State Government to address this menace, as only then will it ensure quality investigations and restore faith in the investigating agency."
Read also:- Magistrate Can Directly Entertain Criminal Complaint Without Prior Police FIR: J&K High Court Clarifies
This is not the first time the Bombay High Court has criticized such practices. In April 2024, the same bench took suo motu cognizance of the "dangerous culture" of copy-pasting witness statements in serious criminal cases. The court had then remarked:
"Even the paragraphs start and end with the same words. This culture is dangerous and may unfairly benefit accused persons."
In that case, the court appointed an amicus curiae to suggest measures to improve investigation quality and eliminate such malpractices.
Case Title: Rahim Sadroddin Shaikh and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Appearances:
- Advocate A.L. Kanade for the Applicants
- A.P.P. A.R. Kale for the State
- Advocate Adil Shaikh h/f Advocate R.V. Gore for Respondent No. 2