In the past two months, the court has flagged such concerns in two separate matters, noting instances of “copy paste witness statements” and directing the Maharashtra government to address what it called a growing “menace” by issuing appropriate guidelines
In Monday’s ruling in the 2006 blasts case, the Bombay High Court took serious note of the striking similarities found in the confessional statements of the accused. File pic
The Bombay High Court (HC) said the “copy-paste” culture seen in confessional and witness statements in charge sheets is a “dangerous” trend.
According to news agency PTI, the issue resurfaced on Monday when the court acquitted all the 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, observing that “the confessional statements are found to be incomplete and not truthful as some parts are a copy paste of each other”.
In the past two months, the court has flagged such concerns in two separate matters, noting instances of “copy paste witness statements” and directing the Maharashtra government to address what it called a growing “menace” by issuing appropriate guidelines, reported PTI.
In Monday’s ruling in the 2006 blasts case, HC took serious note of the striking similarities found in the confessional statements of the accused. It stated that the statements were neither truthful nor complete on various grounds, with portions that were “similar and copied”.
In May, in another case, the court had red-flagged what it called a “dangerous culture” of police copy-pasting witness statements even in serious offences, and directed the Maharashtra government to formulate guidelines to curb the practice, reported PTI.
The bench had also observed that it had come across several such cases where witness statements appeared to be mechanically replicated.
In yet another case, the court noted a similar trend last month and urged the state government to address this “growing menace”.
In the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, a special bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak found that the confessional statements of many accused featured identical questions and answers — almost as if they had been “copied”.
The court included in its 671-page judgment a comparative chart highlighting the similarities across the statements. “Even if it is presumed that the questions are similar, it cannot be ignored that the answers are identical verbatim, which is highly improbable,” the court observed.
“Two people can answer the same way, but not using the exact same words and in the same sequence. They could share the same narrative but will express it differently,” it added.
The High Court’s verdict rejected the prosecution’s reliance on these confessions, noting that certain sections in each statement were “identical and appear to have been copied”, directly contradicting the findings of the trial court.
Commenting on the “shocking finding”, the bench stated, “Upon examining the relevant portion related to bomb blasts of each of the confessional statements, we were surprised to find that certain portions of these statements are identical and appear to have been copied.”
In 2015, the trial court had upheld the validity of the confessional statements, dismissing concerns raised by the defence regarding alleged torture, improper recording before police officers instead of a magistrate, and other inconsistencies.
In response to the defence’s argument about recurring errors across the confessions, the trial court had observed, “Merely on the basis of such commonality, it would be preposterous to draw the conclusion that the confessional statements themselves are fabricated and were dictated or prepared by a single authority.”
However, the High Court on Monday referenced the comparative chart of commonalities and said it spoke “volume about the credibility, reliability, and truthfulness of each of the confessional statements”.
“These charts strengthen the case of the defence that the accused have not given the confessional statements but their signatures were obtained forcefully. The accused persons also, in their complaint before the Sessions Judge as well as in their deposition, claimed that they have not given any confessional statements, and that their signatures were taken on some papers forcefully by the ATS Officers,” the court said.
In 2015, the defence had argued that the confessions were not only extracted under duress but also fabricated. They pointed out that all the accused had alleged third-degree torture, threats, and forced signatures at the hands of DCPs and Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) officers.
The trial court, however, dismissed these allegations as “nothing but casting aspersions on the magistrates or the special judge”, terming the claims “baseless”, and made “for the sake of making it”.
Seven Deputy Commissioners of Police had recorded the confessions, which were subsequently retracted by the accused in court.
After considering the “extent, the nature of the alleged torture” involved, the trial court had said it was improbable that the accused would have “remained quiet till they submitted their retraction applications after over two months”.
(With PTI inputs)
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
