NEW DELHI: The Bombay high court has taken serious note of a frequent practice by police officers of copy-pasting witness statements into charge sheets, even in serious criminal cases.
The court called this a “dangerous culture” that could end up helping the accused.
During a hearing in a criminal matter, the Aurangabad bench of the high court said it was alarming that witness statements in the charge sheet were so similar that “even the paragraphs start with the same words and end with the same words”.
The bench, comprising justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh, stressed the need for urgent reform and asked the Maharashtra government to issue proper guidelines to investigating officers on how witness statements should be recorded.
“It is high time to take cognizance of the issue suo motu (on its own) and to consider, as to what are those shortcomings or difficulties for the investigating officer/ officers when they record such copy-paste statements,” the court said.
The judges made these observations while hearing a petition filed by a group of individuals who wanted the FIR against them quashed.
They had been booked for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 17-year-old boy. While going through the charge sheet, the court said the statements were so identical that it raised doubts about whether witnesses were even called for questioning.
“The culture of copy-paste statements is dangerous and may, in certain cases unnecessarily, give advantage to the accused. In such circumstances, the seriousness of a genuine case may vanish,” the court said.
Even though the high court pointed out the problem, it did not cancel the FIR in this case, saying the offence was serious. The judges said mistakes like this in police investigations can harm people’s trust in the justice system.
The court appointed advocate Mukul Kulkarni as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to help with the matter. He has been tasked with collecting data and suggesting concrete steps the state can take to fix the problem and improve investigation quality.
The court has posted the matter for further hearing on 27 June.