Bombay High Court Again Flags 'Copy-Paste' Witness Statements In Criminal Cases, Asks State To Address 'Menace'

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh made these observations while disposing of a Criminal Application, which was withdrawn after the Court indicated its disinclination to grant relief.

The matter was substantially heard on 25 June 2025, and after examining the Section 161 CrPC witness statements, the bench felt it necessary to call the Investigating Officer to the court on June 30.

Accordingly, Grade Police Sub Inspector Dhanraj Maharu Rathod (Control Room, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar) appeared before the Court and filed an affidavit-in-reply admitting his mistake.

Essentially, the SI had recorded statements of two witnesses, which gave the impression that the informant was the wife of those witnesses.

In his affidavit, the officer explained that "inadvertently due to the typographical mistake, word, 'माझी पत्नी' (my wife) came to be recorded in the statement of another witness who is not the husband of the informant".

He further stated that he is not conversant with electronic/digital devices like computers and had taken assistance from other police personnel. He also disclosed that he is 57 years old and is due to retire in seven months. An unconditional apology was also tendered by him.

Taking note of the submissions made by the police officer in question, the Court reiterated thus:

"Investigation of a crime has to be done seriously and the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when decided to be reduced into writing by the investigating officer, it should be in the language used by the witness".

In particular, the bench again pointed to its previous concern about the wider practice:

"In many matters we have already expressed concern over the trend of copy-paste statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is in practice with the investigating agency. Law does not contemplate copy-paste statements. In such statements even commas, fullstops and the paragraphs would not change".

Furthermore, while accepting the apology of the retiring officer as the bench noted that he is oj the verge of retirement, the Court made it clear that:

"We expect the State Government to address this menace and then only it is going to give a quality investigation and faith in the investigating agency".

The Application was dismissed as withdrawn.

Our readers may note that this is not the first time the Court has criticised the practice. On April 29, 2024, too, this very bench had taken suo motu cognisance of the 'dangerous culture' of copy-pasting witness statements in serious criminal cases. The Court had then remarked:

"Even the paragraphs start with the same words and end with the same words. The culture of copy-paste statements is dangerous and may, in certain cases unnecessarily, give advantage to the accused persons".

In that case, the bench was hearing a plea by five members of a family booked for abetment of suicide of a 17-year-old girl. Although the plea was withdrawn after the bench expressed disinclination, the judges chose to address the lapses in the investigation.

Upon examining the chargesheet, the bench had pointed out that two witnesses cannot give statements in identical fashion as in the statements (furnished in the chargesheet) only change is as per the relationship of the witness either with the deceased or the informant.

"We may also wonder, as to whether really those witnesses are called by the police for statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not, but their statements would appear in the charge-sheet", the bench had remarked.

The bench had appointed advocate Mukul Kulkarni as Amicus Curiae and directed him to collect data and suggest measures to improve investigation quality and eliminate such practices.

Appearance:

Advocate AL Kanade appeared for the Applicants.

APP AR Kale represented the State.

Advocate Adil Shaikh h/f Advocate RV Gore for Resp. No.2.