The Bombay High Court has raised alarm over the growing tendency of investigators to copy-paste witness statements in charge-sheets, warning that such lapses could severely undermine the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving serious offences.

The Court made these observations while hearing a petition seeking the quashing of proceedings in a case of abetment of suicide of a minor.

The case stemmed from an FIR registered at Erandol Police Station in Jalgaon district, initially recorded as an accidental death under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Upon discovering that the deceased was a minor—aged 17 years and 9 months—the police added charges under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains specifically to the abetment of suicide by a minor. Initially, only Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) had been invoked.

The accused, Amol Samadhan Nikam and others, approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge in Jalgaon. However, at the outset of the hearing, counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the application after noting the Court’s reluctance to grant relief.

While permitting the withdrawal, the Bench comprising Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi took the opportunity to comment strongly on the state of the investigation. Referring to the charge-sheet, the Court observed:

"Even in serious offences, the investigating officer has literally made copy-paste of the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Paragraphs start and end identically. Such culture of copy-paste is dangerous and may, in certain cases unnecessarily, give advantage to the accused persons. The seriousness of genuine cases may vanish. Two witnesses cannot give statements in an identical fashion."

The Court expressed doubt over whether the witnesses had actually been examined or if their statements were mechanically inserted into the charge-sheet. It noted that such deficiencies were increasingly being noticed even in Section 306 IPC cases and called for immediate corrective action.

Further, the Court criticized the initial failure to apply Section 305 IPC due to an oversight of the victim’s age, underscoring the need for greater diligence at the FIR stage.

Taking suo motu cognizance of the broader investigative failings, the Court appointed Advocate Mukul Kulkarni as Amicus Curiae to assist in drafting recommendations aimed at improving investigative standards. It also directed the State of Maharashtra to formulate and issue specific guidelines to prevent the practice of copy-pasting statements in police reports.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on June 27, 2025.

Case Details:
Title: Amol Samadhan Nikam & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Application No. 1091 of 2025
Coram: Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi
Counsel for Petitioners: Adv. H.P. Randhir
Counsel for Respondents: Adv. N.R. Dayama (A.P.P.)