Audio-Video Recording Of Statement Not Mandatory: AP High Court Allows YSR Congress MP To Be Accompanied By Lawyer Before SIT

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao in his order referred to High Court's decision in Y.S. Avinash Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by its Director (2023) where it was held that while the proviso to Section 161(3) of CrPC [now, Section 180(3), BNSS] permits discretionary audio-video recording of examination, the person summoned for examination can nonetheless request his examination to be audio-video recorded and consideration of the request shall be in line with the object of Section 161(3) and to ensure that police do not misuse their power to induce statements from the persons so examined.

Justice Rao thereafter said:

"A reading of Section 180(3) of the BNSS as well as the decision reported in Y.S. Avinash Reddy (cited 3rd supra) indicates that the police officer has the discretion to record the statements of witnesses using audiovideo electronic means and the accused or witness cannot compel the Police Officers to record his statement by using audio-video electronic means". 

Background

The petitioner, P.V. Midhun Reddy, a Member of Parliament representing the Rajampet Constituency, has been directed to appear before the SIT at the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, on April 19 for investigation in relation to a crime.

The petitioner prayed before the Court to direct the Investigating Officer to record his statement through audio-video electronic means as, during the examination of the petitioner, there was a possibility of apprehension of potential physical abuse, including the possibility of being assaulted or manhandled. The petitioner contended that the ruling party was aiming to target him out of political vendetta with an intention to implicate him, even though the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the said crime. Additionally, the petitioner argued that recording of witness statements through audio-video electronic means was permissible under law and these measures are intended to safeguard the personal liberty and dignity of not only the accused but also the witnesses, thereby, ensuring a more transparent and accountable criminal justice process.

Contrary to this, the respondents argued that it was not mandatory for the police officer to use audio-video electronic means as per proviso to Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the discretion to use the same lies solely with the Investigating Officer.

Findings

At the outset, the Court referred to Section 180(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which enacts that that a police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. The first proviso to the section provides that the statement thus made may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means.

Taking into consideration the mandate of Section 180(3) of BNSS and the ruling of Y.S. Avinash Reddy, the Court held that the discretion to record statements of witnesses using audio-video electronic means lies with the police officer, who cannot be compelled by either any of the witnesses or the accused.

Disposing of the plea the court additionally directed the Investigating Officer to ensure that the statement of the petitioner is recorded within the "designated coverage area of the CCTV cameras, thereby, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process".

Case Title: P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order