Section 180 BNSS

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, in Aatish Alias Krishnkant v. State of U.P. (2026), directed the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, to issue necessary directions to all police officers to ensure that while recording statements under Section 180 BNSS, they do not put inculpatory leading questions to witnesses, and instead record the version stated by the witness in his or her own language, except for seeking clarification on certain points. 

What was the Background of Aatish Alias Krishnkant v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The case arose out of a bail application in which the accused was facing dowry death charges. 
• At an earlier hearing, the Court had directed the State to produce audio/video recordings of the statements of the first informant and his wife recorded under Section 180 BNSS. 
• The Court had also sought instructions regarding the call detail records of the deceased's sister-in-law and the integration of the MedLEapr digital platform with the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS). 
• The Investigating Officer, along with the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, was directed to remain present before the Court. 
• Pursuant to these directions, it was found that the call detail records of the deceased's sister-in-law had not been obtained during investigation; once procured, they did not reveal any call from the deceased or her in-laws, and the allegation of a call regarding dowry harassment a day before the incident could not be established. 
• It was also apprised that MedLEapr is not integrated with CCTNS, though the post-mortem report can be accessed through CCTNS upon request to the Health Department. 
• On examining the recordings, the Bench found that the police officer recording the statement had, instead of recording the version of the incident as narrated by the first informant and his wife, put leading questions of an inculpatory nature. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the impropriety of leading inculpatory questions: The Court termed the practice of suggesting inculpatory material to witnesses as "absolutely incorrect," holding that the purpose of criminal justice administration is not merely to punish the guilty but also to protect the innocent, and that police should not suggest material to a witness against the accused. 
• On the manner of recording statements: The Court held that statements under Section 180 BNSS should be written in the language and version stated by the witness, with departure permitted only for seeking certain clarifications. 
• On the direction issued: The Court directed the DGP, Lucknow, to issue necessary directions to all police officers that, while recording statements under Section 180 BNSS, they should not suggest inculpatory questions, and should simply record the version stated by the witness in his or her own language, except for seeking clarification on certain points. 
• On the merits of the bail application: The Court noted that the deceased had died after consuming a poisonous substance, that the FIR was lodged only after receipt of the viscera report nearly three months later, that there was no explanation for this delay, that discrepancies existed between the statements of the first informant and his wife, and that there was no evidence corroborating the allegation of a call made by the deceased to her sister-in-law a day before the incident. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court granted bail to the applicant. 
• On the pending technical issue: Observing that questions relating to data transfer between MedLEapr, CCTNS, and CIS required further examination, the Court kept the matter pending for that limited purpose and requested the Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, and the Additional Director General (Technical), U.P. Police, to appear through video conferencing on the next date to assist in resolving the technical issues. 

What is Section 180 of BNSS? 

Section 180 BNSS – Examination of Witnesses by Police: 

Sub-section (1) – Power to Examine 

• Any police officer investigating a case, or any police officer of a rank prescribed by the State Government acting on the requisition of the investigating officer, may orally examine any person believed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. 

Sub-section (2) – Duty to Answer Truthfully 

• The person being examined is bound to truthfully answer all case-related questions put to him. 
• Exception: he need not answer questions whose answers would tend to expose him to a criminal charge, penalty, or forfeiture (protection against self-incrimination). 

Sub-section (3) – Recording of Statements 

• The police officer may reduce the statement into writing, and where he does so, must maintain a separate and true record for each person examined. 
• First Proviso: The statement may also be recorded through audio-video electronic means. 
• Second Proviso: Where the alleged offence is under Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, or 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (offences against women, primarily sexual offences), the statement of the woman victim must be recorded by a woman police officer or woman officer.