Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

"The basic purpose of investigation is to collect the evidence to bring out the truth of the case and not to collect the evidence with the prejudice against any person to hold him guilty." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 15, 2026, held that the Investigating Officer (IO) is not a mere clerk for recording statements but is duty-bound to conduct a fair and objective investigation.

Expressing deep concern over the tendency of IOs to avoid audio-video recording of statements under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP), U.P., to consider making such electronic recording mandatory to ensure transparency and prevent the fabrication of evidence.

Investigation Standards and Judicial Expectations

The court was hearing a bail application in a case involving alleged dowry death. During proceedings, the IO admitted to failing to record audio-video evidence of witness statements, citing that such preparation was optional under current circulars. The court observed that this "option" is being widely misused by IOs to avoid accountability, often leading to situations where statements are drafted by the police themselves, merely mirroring the FIR.

Court Re-emphasizes Investigating Duty

The bench presided over by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal highlighted that the duties of an IO, as prescribed under the U.P. Police Regulations, require the officer to observe, infer, and find the truth rather than merely securing a conviction. The court noted that a fair investigation serves the twin purposes of being unbiased and honest, as established by the Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali.

"An investigating officer is not to regard himself as a mere clerk for the recording of statements. It is his duty to observe and to infer."

Mandatory Guidelines for Fair Investigation

To curb the menace of false implications, especially in dowry, POCSO, and SC/ST cases, the court issued comprehensive guidelines. These include a mandate for the IO to promptly visit the crime scene, record statements expeditiously, and prioritize the collection of independent evidence. The court emphasized that in cases punishable with ten years or more, or in sexual assault cases, witnesses and victims should be produced before a Magistrate for statement recording to prevent tutoring or external influence.

"The purpose of investigation is to collect the material not to create the material regarding the offence in question."

Leveraging Technology in Investigative Procedures

The court further directed that IOs must utilize modern technology, such as the E-Sakshya App, for audio-video recording. It also mandated that in sexual assault cases, Cyber Cell and FSL assistance should be sought if there are allegations of obscene videos. Furthermore, the court stressed that CDR analysis and adherence to strict Test Identification Parade (TIP) protocols—including the mixing of recovered property with similar items—are essential to maintaining the integrity of the investigative process.

Directing Policy Reform for Future Trials

Concluding the matter, the court granted bail to the applicant—the mother-in-law of the deceased—after observing the lack of specific material regarding cruelty soon before death. The court ultimately directed the DGP to communicate these guidelines to all police units across the state to ensure that real culprits are brought to justice and innocent persons are protected from the harassment of faulty or tainted investigations.

Date of Decision: 15 September 2026