Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a complaint by the father of the appellant (Miss 'A') alleging that she was sexually exploited by Respondent No.2 and others. The appellant's Facebook video went viral, leading to a suo motu writ petition in the Supreme Court. The Court directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate. During investigation, the appellant's statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Respondent No.2 sought a copy of this statement, which was denied by the trial court citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v. Shivanna, which held that such statements should not be supplied during investigation to protect the victim and witnesses. The High Court, however, allowed the application, relying on a Division Bench decision in Raju Janki Yadav v. State of U.P., and directed the trial court to provide a certified copy. The appellant challenged this order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ignoring the binding precedent of Shivanna. The Court emphasized that the directions in Shivanna are not merely for police but are binding on courts. Supplying the Section 164 statement during investigation could endanger the victim and witnesses and prejudice the investigation. The Court set aside the High Court order and restored the trial court's order rejecting the application for copy of the statement. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Section 164 CrPC Statement - Supply to Accused During Investigation - The accused is not entitled to a copy of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC during the investigation stage, as it may jeopardize the safety of the victim and witnesses and hamper the investigation. The High Court erred in relying on Raju Janki Yadav and ignoring the binding precedent in Shivanna. (Paras 13-18)
B) Criminal Procedure - Section 164 CrPC - Directions in Shivanna - Applicability to Courts - The directions in State of Karnataka v. Shivanna regarding non-supply of Section 164 statements during investigation are binding on courts and not merely advisory for police. The High Court's distinction that the directions were only for police is incorrect. (Paras 13-17)
C) Criminal Procedure - Section 164 CrPC - Victim Protection - Safety Concerns - In cases involving sexual offences, the safety of the victim and witnesses is paramount. Supplying the Section 164 statement to the accused during investigation can lead to intimidation and influence, defeating the purpose of a fair investigation. (Paras 13-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an accused is entitled to a copy of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC during the pendency of investigation, and whether the High Court erred in directing supply of such copy despite potential risk to the victim and witnesses.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 07.11.2019, and restored the trial court's order dated 19.09.2019 rejecting the application for copy of the Section 164 statement. The Court held that the accused is not entitled to a copy of the victim's Section 164 statement during investigation.
Law Points
- Right to copy of Section 164 CrPC statement during investigation
- Applicability of Shivanna directions
- Victim protection and safety concerns
- Prejudice to investigation
Case Details
2020 LawText (SC) (10) 27
Criminal Appeal No.659 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10401 of 2019)
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against High Court order directing supply of victim's Section 164 CrPC statement to accused during investigation.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of High Court order and restoration of trial court's order rejecting accused's application for copy of Section 164 statement.
Filing Reason
High Court allowed accused's application for copy of victim's Section 164 statement, ignoring binding precedent and potential risk to victim and witnesses.
Previous Decisions
Trial court rejected accused's application for copy of Section 164 statement on 19.09.2019; High Court allowed it on 07.11.2019.
Issues
Whether the accused is entitled to a copy of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC during the pendency of investigation.
Whether the High Court erred in directing supply of such copy despite the binding precedent in Shivanna and potential risk to victim and witnesses.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that supply of Section 164 statement during investigation would jeopardize safety of victim and witnesses and hamper investigation.
Respondent No.2 argued that he was entitled to a copy under the law, relying on Raju Janki Yadav.
Ratio Decidendi
The accused is not entitled to a copy of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC during the investigation stage, as it may jeopardize the safety of the victim and witnesses and hamper the investigation. The directions in State of Karnataka v. Shivanna are binding on courts and not merely advisory for police.
Judgment Excerpts
The directions issued by this Court in Shivanna were to the following effect:- '10.1. Upon receipt of information relating to the commission of offence of rape, the investigating officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to any Metropolitan/preferably Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. A copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC should be handed over to the investigating officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 CrPC'
The High Court found that the decision of this Court in Shivanna would not get attracted for the following reason:- 'It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the said directions were issued only for the police to be followed and not to the Court. I agree with the said argument...'
Procedural History
On 25.08.2019, father of appellant lodged complaint. FIR No.442/2019 filed on complaint of Om Singh. FIR No.445/2019 filed on 27.08.2019. Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2/2019 registered in Supreme Court. On 30.08.2019, appellant found in Rajasthan. On 02.09.2019, Supreme Court directed SIT and monitoring by High Court. On 16.09.2019, appellant's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. On 17.09.2019, accused applied for copy; trial court rejected on 19.09.2019. On 22.10.2019, accused filed Criminal Misc. Application No.39538/2019 in High Court. On 05.11.2019, charge-sheets filed. On 07.11.2019, High Court allowed application. On 13.11.2019, appellant filed SLP. Copy supplied to accused before SLP could be heard.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 164, 161, 173
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 376C, 354D, 342, 506, 364
