Allahabad HC: Direction For Re-Recording Of Victim's Statement U/S 183 BNSS Can Be Given Only In 'Exceptional Circumstances

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 it’s 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 where victim alleges that her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was not read over to her or that she was not given an opportunity to confirm its correctness. The High Court can in appropriate cases exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to direct a fresh recording of statement before the Magistrate and 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.{Para 16}

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3822 of 2026

Kirti Verma Vs  State of U.P.

HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.

HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

Per: Hon’ble Achal Sachdev, J.

Judgement Delivered on 26.02.2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: The Magistrate recording S 164 CRPC statement is usually summoned only if the defence challenges the manner of recording/voluntariness, or to clarify disputed aspects of compliance

PW-3 and PW-4 have deposed that they were under threat

from the concerned Investigating Officer who was present along

with them before the Magistrate. The concerned Investigating

Officer has been examined as PW-8 in the present case and

during his examination, there is not even a suggestion from the

appellants to the effect that he was present along with PW-3 and

PW-4 at the time of recording their statement under Section 164

or to the effect that he had threatened them to give incriminating

statements against the appellants. Furthermore, the concerned

Magistrate could have been examined as a witness in the present

matter to clear the controversy on this aspect and for unexplained reasons, he was never called for examination especially when a completely hostile version was being provided by the witnesses qua the proceedings which were conducted before him. The appellants failed to place any material on record to justify the allegation of threat and as discussed above, the statements of PW-3 and PW-4 recorded under Section 164 CrPC reflected the correct version of the events that transpired on the fateful day. {para 30}

Ratio: The Magistrate is usually summoned only if the defence challenges the manner of recording/voluntariness, or to clarify disputed aspects of compliance (warning, voluntariness, memorandum, etc.). 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2013

VIJAYA SINGH & ANR. Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 

Author: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 905

Print Page