The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticised the State of Uttar Pradesh after discovering serious discrepancies in an affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, in a case involving a minor rape victim. The case had prompted the Court to question why the State was challenging a judicial order permitting a re-recording of the victim’s statement and why it persisted in demanding a polygraph test of the victim and her father. The bench, headed by Abdul Moin and Babita Rani, observed that the SP's affidavit was “false” in claiming that the polygraph application was pending — in fact, that application had already been rejected by the court before the affidavit was sworn. The Court described this false statement as the first indication of troubling conduct by the police authorities.
The facts of the case reveal that the victim, a minor, had originally recorded her statement under Section 183 BNSS on October 28, 2024. She later sought re-recording of her statement before the Special Judge under the POCSO Act, claiming she had earlier given an inaccurate version under pressure. On January 8, 2025, the Special Judge allowed the re-recording request, and on March 19 of the same year, the fresh statement was recorded — in which she clearly alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by the accused. Despite this, the State has challenged the very order permitting re-recording, and continues to press for a polygraph test.
The High Court found this stance inexplicable. The bench asked how the State could be “aggrieved” by an order that only directed a re-recording of the victim’s statement during an ongoing investigation. The Court said it found it “strange” that the State — rather than the accused — chose to challenge the re-recording order. Further, given that the fresh statement recounted the sexual assault, the insistence on a polygraph test of the minor victim and her father appeared unwarranted. The Court noted that once a competent court accepts that a previous statement was made under duress and allows a re-recorded statement, where the offence is clearly articulated, there should be no further demand for a polygraph test.
In light of these “shocking aspects,” the Court directed the State to produce a personal affidavit from the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, within a week, seeking explanation for the conduct of the police and the basis for contesting the re-recorded statement. The bench flagged its concern at the adversarial stance adopted by the State toward the victim, particularly in a case involving a minor. The next date of hearing was scheduled for December 15.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.