Bombay High Court Flags Systemic Issue of Copy-Paste Statements in suicide abetment investigations
Introduction:
In the matter of Amol Nikam & Ors. v. State of Maharashtrai, the Bombay High Court (‘the Court’), Aurangabad Bench, drew attention to a troubling pattern in criminal investigations copy-paste witness statements under s. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). Although the Court dismissed the application as withdrawn, it took suo moto cognizance of the issue, flagging the threat this practice poses to the credibility of police investigations and the administration of justice, particularly in serious offences such as abetment of suicide by a minor under s. 305 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
Brief Facts:
The Applicants filed an application under s. 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2024. The case arose from an FIR registered on 24.02.2024 under ss. 306, 352, 294, 504, and 506 read with s. 34 of the IPC, later amended to include s. 305 IPC after the age of the deceased reported as 17 years and 9 months was verified from the birth certificate. Initially treated as an accidental death under s. 174 CrPC, the case was upgraded based on the seriousness of allegations and the minor status of the deceased.
During the hearing, the applicants chose to withdraw the application. However, while perusing the charge sheet, the Court noticed that several witness statements recorded under s. 161 CrPC were virtually identical, with changes only in the relational context of the witnesses. This prompted the Court to take suo moto cognizance of what it considered a deeply concerning and recurring practice by investigating authorities.
Held:
The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the criminal application as withdrawn but delivered a significant order based on its observations of the investigative process. The Court noted that even in serious offences like abetment of suicide by a minor punishable under s. 305 IPC the investigating officer had recorded statements that were clearly copy-pasted. Identical language, structure, and narrative across multiple witness statements were evident, raising suspicion over whether the witnesses had actually been examined.
The Court observed that this practice of duplicating statements was not isolated and had been noticed in other cases, including those under s. 498-A IPC. It held that such mechanical and careless investigation methods undermine the seriousness of genuine complaints and could unjustly benefit the accused. The Court questioned whether the police were truly calling witnesses for examination or merely fabricating statements to complete the charge sheet formally. Taking suo moto cognizance of the systemic lapse, the Court appointed an amicus curiae to collect data and prepare a petition proposing measures to curb this practice and improve the quality of police investigation. The Court also directed the State Government to issue specific guidelines to investigating officers on the correct method for recording witness statements.
Our Analysis
This ruling is a powerful judicial statement against the mechanical and negligent manner in which criminal investigations are sometimes carried out. The Court’s suo moto intervention underlines the seriousness of the issue template-based witness statements not only compromise the evidentiary value of the charge sheet but also risk miscarriages of justice. Such practices are antithetical to the principle of fair investigation as envisioned under a. 21 of the Constitution and reaffirmed in landmark judgments.
This ruling serves as an important precedent that affirms the judiciary’s role not just in interpreting law, but in ensuring its meaningful implementation. It sends a clear message that criminal investigations must be rooted in diligence, integrity, and procedure. The case now holds potential for catalysing structural reforms in Maharashtra’s policing practices and can become a model for broader nationwide improvements.
Authored by Ascend Legal Editorial Team. The opinions expressed are personal and do not constitute any legal advocacy.
