The Bombay High Court raised serious concerns over the practice of copy-pasting witness statements in charge-sheets while dismissing a quashing petition in a case involving abetment of suicide of a minor. The Court emphasised that such investigative lapses could jeopardise the criminal justice system, especially in serious offences. It directed the State to frame specific guidelines and appointed an amicus curiae to assist in improving investigative standards.
The case arose out of an FIR registered at Erandol Police Station, Jalgaon, alleging that the accused had abetted the suicide of a minor girl. Initially recorded as an accidental death under Section 174 of CrPC, the matter was later escalated to an offence under Section 306 IPC. Upon discovering the girl’s age to be 17 years and 9 months, Section 305 IPC, relating to abetment of suicide by a minor, was also added. The accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.
At the outset of the hearing, the counsel for the applicants, upon noting the Court's disinclination to grant relief, sought permission to withdraw the application.
While allowing the withdrawal of the petition, the Court made strong remarks regarding the quality of the police investigation. Referring to the charge-sheet, the Court noted, "Even in serious offences, the investigating officer has literally made copy-paste of the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Paragraphs start and end identically. Such culture of copy-paste is dangerous and may, in certain cases unnecessarily, give advantage to the accused persons. The seriousness of genuine cases may vanish. Two witnesses cannot give statements in an identical fashion."
The Court expressed concern over whether the witnesses were even genuinely called for examination or if their statements were mechanically inserted. It further added, "We are coming across such copy-paste statements even in offences under Section 306 IPC. It is high time to take suo motu cognizance and consider the shortcomings or difficulties faced by the investigating officers."
Additionally, the Court highlighted that due to oversight of the deceased’s age at the time of recording the FIR, the police initially failed to invoke the appropriate provision under Section 305 IPC.
While the criminal application was dismissed as withdrawn, the High Court took suo motu cognizance of the systemic lapse and appointed Advocate Mukul Kulkarni as Amicus Curiae to assist in preparing a petition aimed at improving investigative procedures. The Court directed the State to issue clear guidelines to address the issue of copy-paste statements and posted the matter for further consideration on June 27, 2025.
Case Title: Amol Samadhan Nikam & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Application No. 1091 OF 2025
Coram: Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh, Justice Vibha Kankanwadi
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. H.P. Randhir
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. N.R. Dayama (A.P.P)
Picture Source :
