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

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!