Absent patent perversity, delay and tutoring risks justify refusing re-recording of a victim’s judicial statement.

The Petitioner lodged an FIR alleging that accused persons kidnapped his minor daughter for marriage

Following her rescue, the victim's statement was recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the S.D.J.M., Kendrapara

The Petitioner subsequently moved an application for a "further statement" or "re-recording" of the victim's statement, contending that the initial statement was made under police pressure and in the presence of the accused, and that mandatory medical examination and child-friendly procedures under the POCSO Act were ignored

The learned S.D.J.M. rejected this application on 08.01.2026 citing significant delay and the risk of tutoring

The Petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS.

The Court applied Section 183 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 Cr.P.C.) regarding the judicial recording of statements during investigation, emphasizing that its primary object is to ensure voluntariness and authenticity

It relied on Bhima Mallik v. State of Orissa, Showkat Ali v. State, and Archana v. UT of J&K to establish that there is no statutory bar to recording a statement more than once if circumstances demand

The Court also applied the principle of judicial discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, which mandates interference only in cases of patent perversity or miscarriage of justice, while cautioning against the dilution of judicial records through repeated "favourable versions"

The Court reasoned that while jurisdictional power to re-record a statement exists, its exercise is not a matter of right but must be justified by compelling circumstances

In this case, although the Petitioner alleged procedural lapses (non-compliance with POCSO safeguards), the Court noted that the victim was produced before a Magistrate after staying at a 'Sakhi' shelter home and was handed over to her father immediately after her statement

The three-month delay in filing the application for re-recording was deemed a critical factor, as it introduced the possibility of external influence or tutoring

The Court further observed that a Section 183 statement is not substantive evidence; its veracity can be tested during trial through cross-examination, and thus, procedural irregularities at the investigation stage do not inherently necessitate a re-recording of the judicial statement

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the S.D.J.M.’s order did not suffer from patent perversity or illegality and clarified that the victim remains free to disclose true facts during the trial.