Courts flag 'copy paste' culture in confessional and witness statements

Mumbai: The “copy paste” culture in confessional statements and witness statements in chargesheets has been flagged by courts on several occasions, with the Bombay High Court calling it a “dangerous” trend.

The issue came to the fore again on Monday after the HC acquitted all the 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, saying “the confessional statements are found to be incomplete and not truthful as some parts are a copy paste of each other”.

In two cases in May and June, the high court had taken note of “copy paste witness statements” and directed the Maharashtra government to address this growing “menace” and issue guidelines.

In Monday’s order in the train blasts case, the HC took a serious note of the similarity in the confessional statements of the accused persons. The court said the confessional statements were not found to be truthful and complete in various grounds, and some portions were found to be similar and copied.

In May, the high court in another case red flagged a “dangerous culture” adopted by the police of copy pasting witness statements even in serious offences and had then asked the Maharashtra government to issue guidelines.

The HC had then said that it had come across several such cases where it had noticed such “copy-paste” witness statements.

Last month, the high court took note of a similar trend in yet another criminal case and directed the state government to address this growing “menace”.

In the train blasts case, a special bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak observed that the confessional statements of many accused had identical questions and answers as if they have been “copied”.

The bench in its 671-page judgment included a comparative chart of the confessional statements to show the similarities. “Even if it is presumed that the questions are similar, it cannot be ignored that the answers are identical verbatim, which is highly improbable,” HC said.

“Two people can answer the same way, but not using the exact same words and in the same sequence. They could share the sane narrative but will express it differently,” the court said.

The HC’s verdict in the train blasts case trashed the prosecution's reliance on the confessional statements and said certain portions in each of the statements are "identical and appear to have been copied", in complete contrast with the trial court judgment.

Commenting on the "shocking finding", the bench said, "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 authenticity of the confessions and discarded factors such as torture, recording of statements before a police officer instead of the magistrate, and other common oddities in the confessional statements, as pointed out by the defence.

On the argument of the presence of common mistakes in the confessional statements, the trial court had then 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".

Monday’s HC verdict referred to a chart demonstrating the commonality in the confessional statements 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 argued that the confessions were not only extracted under duress but also fabricated, pointing out all accused complained of third-degree torture, threat and forced signatures at the hands of DCPs and ATS officers.

“The trial court, however, called it "nothing but casting aspersions on the magistrates or the special judge" and junked the claims as "baseless', made for the “sake of making it”.

Seven DCPs had recorded the confessional statements. The accused later retracted their confessional statements before the court.

The trial court, after considering the "extent, the nature of the alleged torture" that led to signing of confessional statements, said it was not probable that the accused persons would have "remained quiet till they submitted their retraction applications after over two months".