HC frowns on copy-paste witness statements, calls it risky for prosecution

While hearing a criminal case, the bench noted witness statements in the charge sheet were nearly identical, with paragraphs starting and ending with the same words, raising concerns of copy-pasting

Taking notice of the "dangerous culture" of investigating officers copy-pasting witness statements even while filing charge sheets in serious offences, the Bombay High Court has asked the Maharashtra government to issue necessary guidelines.

Hearing a petition in a criminal matter, the bench noted that the statements of witnesses reproduced in the charge sheet were so similar that even "the paragraphs start with the same words and end with the same words".

If the police were cutting corners in this way even in serious cases, it was not a good sign for the criminal justice system, said Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh of the Aurangabad bench in a recent order. "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 bench asked the state government to come out with specific guidelines for police officials as to how a statement should be recorded. The court was hearing a petition filed by some persons seeking to quash an FIR registered against them for alleged abetment to the suicide of a 17-year-old youth. After going through the charge sheet, the court noticed that even in a serious offence, the investigating officer had "literally copy-pasted" the witnesses' statements. "Even the paragraphs start with the same words and end with the same words," the HC remarked.

  "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 bench said. It wondered if the witnesses were even called by the police for recording a statement.

In the case before it, the high court refused to grant any relief to the accused, noting that it was a serious offence. The HC appointed advocate Mukul Kulkarni to assist it, asking him to collect data and suggest measures which the government may take to prevent such practices and improve the quality of investigation overall. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on June 27.