The Allahabad High Court has clarified the limited scope for re-recording statements under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. In a significant ruling, the Court held that such re-recording is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, reinforcing the procedural safeguards while balancing the rights of victims and the integrity of criminal investigations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kirti Verma, is the complainant and victim in a criminal case registered under Sections 70(1), 352, 351(1), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. She filed a writ petition seeking directions to the respondent-State to re-record her statement under Section 183 BNSS, alleging that her original statement was not correctly recorded by the Magistrate. The petitioner contended that there was a gross violation of the procedural safeguards prescribed under Section 183 BNSS, which necessitated judicial intervention.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 2024: FIR registered under the relevant provisions of the BNS.
- 2025: Petitioner filed applications before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC Court No. 01, Azamgarh, seeking re-recording of her statement under Section 183 BNSS.
- 13.01.2026: The trial court dismissed the applications, observing that re-recording of statements under Section 183 BNSS could only be directed by the High Court or Supreme Court in exceptional circumstances.
- 2026: The petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court through the present writ petition.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-State to re-record her statement under Section 183 BNSS, in compliance with the procedural safeguards. She emphasized that her petition was confined to the procedural aspect and did not seek adjudication on the merits of the case.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether Section 183 BNSS permits the re-recording of a victim's statement as a routine procedure, or whether such re-recording is permissible only in exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that:
- Her statement under Section 183 BNSS was not correctly recorded, violating the procedural safeguards.
- The Magistrate failed to ensure that the statement was read over to her and confirmed as correct, a mandatory requirement under Section 183(4) BNSS.
- The re-recording of her statement was necessary to uphold the fairness of the trial and prevent misuse of the legal process.
For the Respondent
The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State contended that:
- Section 183 BNSS does not contemplate the re-recording of statements as a routine procedure.
- The trial court had correctly observed that any direction for re-recording could only be issued by the High Court or Supreme Court in exceptional circumstances.
- The petitioner's statement had been recorded in compliance with the procedural requirements, and there was no justification for re-recording.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 183 BNSS, which corresponds to Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The provision mandates the recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate during the investigation or before the commencement of the trial, with stringent safeguards to ensure voluntariness and accuracy.
"The primary purpose of Section 183 of B.N.S.S. is to provide a safe, voluntary, and judicially supervised mechanism for recording confessions (by the accused) and statements (witnesses or the victims) during a criminal investigation or even afterwards before inquiry or trial begins. This ensures that these statements or confessions are made freely and without coercion, carrying higher reliability and evidentiary value."
The Court emphasized that Section 183 BNSS is designed to act as a judicial filter, balancing effective prosecution with the protection of individual rights. The provision incorporates several safeguards, including:
- The Magistrate must explain to the person making the statement that they are not bound to make it and that it may be used as evidence against them.
- The Magistrate must ensure voluntariness after questioning the person.
- The statement must be read over to the person, who must then sign or affix their thumb impression to confirm its correctness.
- In cases involving vulnerable persons, such as victims of sexual offenses, the statement may be recorded through audio-video means, preferably by a woman Magistrate.
The Court noted that Section 183 BNSS does not authorize the re-recording of statements as a standard procedure. The purpose of the provision is to record a reliable, voluntary statement once, with evidentiary value for trial. However, the Court acknowledged that High Courts possess supervisory powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) to intervene in exceptional cases where:
- The original statement was allegedly coerced or not voluntary.
- The statement was improperly recorded or its integrity was compromised.
- Fairness demands re-recording due to new material facts, witness hostility, or serious procedural lapses.
The Court observed that while not every allegation of procedural lapse would warrant re-recording, a credible claim of non-compliance with core safeguards - such as the failure to read over the statement - could provide strong grounds for intervention. The Court relied on the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting the re-recording of the petitioner's statement under Section 183 BNSS. The Court concluded that the original statement had been recorded in compliance with the procedural safeguards, and the petitioner's allegations did not establish a prima facie case for intervention.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Re-Recording of Statements Is Not Routine
The judgment reinforces that Section 183 BNSS does not permit the re-recording of statements as a matter of course. Practitioners must recognize that:
- Re-recording can only be directed in exceptional circumstances, such as procedural lapses that compromise the integrity of the original statement.
- Allegations of non-compliance with safeguards must be substantiated with credible evidence, such as affidavits or material demonstrating coercion or misrecording.
High Courts Will Intervene Only in Exceptional Cases
The Court's ruling underscores the limited scope of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 and Section 528 BNSS. Practitioners should note:
- High Courts will not entertain routine requests for re-recording statements under Section 183 BNSS.
- Directions for re-recording will be issued only where the original statement's integrity is seriously compromised, particularly in sensitive cases involving victims of sexual offenses or other vulnerable persons.
Procedural Safeguards Are Non-Negotiable
The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards under Section 183 BNSS. Key takeaways include:
- Magistrates must ensure that statements are read over to the person making them and confirmed as correct.
- Failure to comply with these safeguards may provide grounds for judicial intervention, particularly if the lapse affects the voluntariness or authenticity of the statement.
- Practitioners must scrutinize the recording process to ensure compliance with Section 183 BNSS, as procedural lapses can undermine the evidentiary value of the statement.
