Bombay High Court deprecates practice of Magistrates recording witness statements only on fixed dates

The Bombay High Court on Thursday deprecated the practice of Magistrates in Mumbai assigning fixed dates to each police station for recording witness and victim statements under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [XYZ v. Suo Moto PIL]..The Court said that such statements should be recorded promptly and without delay and, hence directed Magistrates to withdraw the circulars providing such fixed dates.A bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj K Chavan was hearing a plea for a fair investigation into the sexual assault of a 3-year-old minor from a scheduled caste community by her 15-year-old neighbour. The alleged crime happened in Mumbai's Saki Naka..The Court today ordered that in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), statements should be recorded as soon as the police station requests them and the same must be completed within a maximum of four days.“We deprecate this practice ignoring the urgency that will be there in a given case for recording of statements of victims under section 183 of BNSS. On a requisition made by the police station, it's incumbent on the magistrate to ensure that the statement is recorded as expeditiously as possible within 3 to 4 days, and not later than 4 days,” the Court directed. .The direction was passed after public prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar highlighted the practice in Mumbai courts wherein magistrates assign only two specific dates per month for recording witness and victim statements from particular police stations..In this case, the incident occurred on August 13, and the police requested a statement on August 15. However, because the JFMC at Bandra, had set fixed dates for the Saki Naka police station, the statement had not been recorded by the time of the hearing. Consequently, the High Court directed that the statement be recorded by the following day..During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, advocate Amit Katarnawre, accused the police of neglecting their duties and verbally abusing the complainant.He also criticized the media for not reporting the crime, despite advisories from the Ministry of Broadcasting about covering news involving weaker sections of society. He argued that if the media had reported the case, it might have prompted suo moto action, similar to that in the Badlapur matter..The Court noted that suo moto action is not taken in every case. It recognized the prompt action of the police, observing that the FIR was registered on the same day of the incident and the accused was arrested that day, and medical examinations were also completed on time"Every matter is not taken suo moto. The question is inaction of police. From the timeline, it appears that there is prompt action. It was not done by Badlapur police. Look at timeline (in this case). Action was taken immediately. FIR was registered, statement recorded," the Court remarked..The Court also highlighted some insensitivity in handling the case and noted that instances of prior antecedents must be looked into. Following the submission that show cause notices were issued to five police officers for verbally abusing the complainant, the Court orally directed that further show cause notices be issued under Section 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.Additionally, it ordered that compensation under the Manodhairya scheme, which provides between ₹3 to 10 lakh to victims of sexual assault, rape, child sexual abuse and acid attacks, be disbursed within one week.