Introduction

The case of Ajay Diwakar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others, adjudicated by the Allahabad High Court on May 3, 2023, represents a significant precedent in the realm of criminal jurisprudence, particularly concerning the validity and sanctity of victim statements recorded under different sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and their subsequent usage in bail considerations. This comprehensive commentary delves into the multifaceted aspects of the judgment, exploring its background, key legal issues, and the implications it holds for future cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The case consolidated ten criminal miscellaneous bail applications against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The core legal question addressed was whether material collected during investigations—such as subsequent statements (Mazid Bayan), statements given by a minor victim before a Child Welfare Committee, or instances where the victim and accused resided together—can influence the Investigating Officer’s (I.O.) assessment in a manner that contradicts earlier statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

The Allahabad High Court, referencing prior judgments, particularly Dharmendra alias Patra v. State of U.P. and Bulle v. State of U.P., emphasized the sanctity of statements recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. over those taken by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The court held that while the I.O. has discretion to investigate, including recording additional statements, such actions must not undermine the integrity of judicially recorded statements. Consequently, all ten bail applications were granted, highlighting the necessity for Investigating Officers to adhere strictly to procedural fairness without compromising the_AUTHORITY_ of statements recorded in judicial forums.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several pivotal cases and legal provisions that shaped its reasoning:

• Dharmendra alias Patra v. State of U.P. (2021): This case underscored the supremacy of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. over those taken under Section 161 Cr.P.C., particularly when discrepancies arise.
• Bulle v. State of U.P. (2021): Emphasized the ethical and procedural obligations of Investigating Officers to ensure fairness and impartiality in investigations.
• Maughavendra Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023): Highlighted the responsibilities and ethical duties of Investigating Officers in maintaining the integrity of investigations.
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2015): Reinforced the necessity for unbiased and impartial investigations to prevent wrongful trials.
• Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) and Bhagwant Singh v. Commission of Police (1983): These cases provided foundational principles on the conduct of investigations and maintenance of case diaries.

Legal Reasoning

The Allahabad High Court's analysis revolves around the **sanctity and hierarchy** of statements recorded during investigations. Central to this reasoning is the distinction between statements obtained under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and those recorded by non-judicial authorities, such as Child Welfare Committees under the Juvenile Justice Act.

The court emphasized that statements recorded before a Magistrate (Section 164) hold higher evidentiary value compared to those taken by Investigating Officers (Section 161). This hierarchy ensures that judicially recorded statements are **protected from external influences or manipulative investigative practices**. The court criticized the practice where Investigating Officers might seek to undermine or contradict these judicial statements through supplementary interrogations, labeling such actions as attempts to **frustrate the integrity** of the judicial record.

Furthermore, the court underscored that while Investigating Officers possess the discretion to conduct investigations and record additional statements, this discretion is bounded by the need to maintain procedural fairness and uphold the ethical obligations of their role. Any deviation aimed solely at weakening or negating judicially recorded statements is deemed impermissible.

Impact

This judgment sets a **robust precedent** for the treatment of victim statements in criminal cases, particularly those involving minors and sensitive offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Key impacts include:

• Elevated Status of Judicial Statements: Reinforces the primacy of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., ensuring they are given due weight in investigations and judicial proceedings.
• Checks on Investigative Practices: Imposes constraints on Investigating Officers, preventing them from leveraging supplementary statements to undermine judicial records.
• Guidelines for Child Welfare Committees: Clarifies the role and evidentiary value of statements made before Child Welfare Committees, ensuring they are integrated appropriately into the case diary without negating judicial statements.
• Procedural Fairness: Enhances the framework for fair investigations, mandating Investigating Officers to **exercise discretion responsibly** and uphold the sanctity of judicial processes.

Future cases involving bail applications and the evaluation of victim statements will likely adhere closely to the principles elucidated in this judgment, promoting **integrity and fairness** in the criminal justice system.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court's decision in Ajay Diwakar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others is a landmark ruling that fortifies the **hierarchical integrity** of victim statements within criminal investigations. By asserting the primacy of judicially recorded statements and placing meaningful checks on the practices of Investigating Officers, the court has reinforced the pillars of **fairness and justice** in the criminal justice system. This judgment not only provides clarity on the treatment of conflicting statements but also ensures that the rights of both victims and the accused are **balanced and protected**. As a result, it paves the way for more **transparent and ethical** investigative procedures in future cases.