Author: Md. Ali Imran
In our practice as lawyers, there are moments when a single certified copy becomes the key to systemic change. Recently, we found ourselves caught in one such moment while representing a victim in a special case under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, before the SC/ST Special Court in Patna Civil Court. The case involved a serious sexual offence against an illiterate Dalit woman in her 50s. The incident had occurred in April 2024, and the FIR had been registered under various provisions of the IPC and the SC/ST Act.
By mid-2025, when the victim approached us, she was not in possession of any documents pertaining to her case. By then, the trial had already commenced and had reached the stage of recording of evidence. Conventionally, the victim of the offence or the informant is examined as the first Prosecution Witness (PW1), making their testimony crucial. In the present case, the victim’s evidence was particularly significant. However, considering her age, social and educational background, and the time elapsed since the incident, we felt it was necessary to go through all the case documents before she testified in court, especially regarding the statement she had recorded under Section 164 CrPC (now S. 183 BNSS, 2023). Such a statement, recorded before a Magistrate, has strong evidentiary value.
The Wall of Convention
Accordingly, in order to peruse the victim’s Section 164/183 BNSS statement, we proceeded to inspect the case file. However, the statement was sealed in an envelope, and we were not allowed to open it. The court staff informed us that the Patna Civil Court had a long-standing convention: certified copies of Section 164 statements are not given out before the statement is exhibited in court. Our request was denied without further discussion.
Determined not to let procedural convention override legal entitlement, we filed an application before the concerned Court under Section 230 of the BNSS. Section 230 BNSS replaces Section 207 of the CrPC. While Section 207 earlier conferred the right to receive crucial records and statements only upon the accused, the new provision under Section 230 explicitly extends this right to the victim as well. It mandates that both the accused and the victim (if represented by a lawyer) must be furnished with such documents, including statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, before the trial begins. This change reflects a purposive interpretation of fairness and participation in trial, ensuring that the victim is not left dependent solely on the Public Prosecutor for access to crucial records. The judge, after hearing us, allowed the application, and the Peshkar of that Court directed us to apply for a certified copy of the statement. Ideally, under Section 230 BNSS, such a copy ought to have been provided to the victim free of cost by the Court. Nevertheless, following the Peshkar’s direction, we proceeded to apply for the certified copy.
The Court Agrees, but the System Resists
We followed the procedure, filed a chirkut (the term conventionally used for an application seeking a certified copy), and approached the Nakalkhana (Copying Department). However, at the Nakalkhana, we met resistance. The Bare Babu (Head Clerk) of the department summarily rejected our request, stating that, as per the existing court practice, such statements were not to be provided until they had been formally exhibited in court. The Bare Babu flatly refused to process our request. He had never issued a certified copy of the Section 164 statement before it was exhibited in court. We tried explaining the law, showed him the text of BNSS, and even pointed to our court order. Still, he was hesitant, more out of confusion than defiance. It is pertinent to mention here that the court’s order allowing the application had not been formally communicated to him. But does that truly matter? Obtaining these documents is a statutory right, and the victim is entitled to them without being subjected to any procedural hurdles.
Eventually, amidst the confusion, the Bare Babu suggested that we accompany him to meet the Record Room In-Charge, his superior, and explain the matter to him. After five or six failed visits, we finally met the In-charge Officer. We explained the situation and showed him the new law. After patient discussion and explanation, he acknowledged the legal position and advised the Bare Babu to verify whether the judge had indeed allowed the application. If the order existed, he was instructed to comply and provide the certified copy. This once again raises the question: do these procedural hurdles, imposed in the name of court convention, serve any legitimate purpose, or do they merely delay and complicate the course of justice?
The meeting with the Record Room In-Charge marked the beginning of a coordinated effort. The Bare Babu, who was nearing retirement and in his 60s, began actively assisting us. He accompanied us to the fourth floor, where the Special SC/ST Court is located, to meet the Peshkar of the concerned court and confirm the order. The Peshkar assured him that the application had been allowed, but the order copy had not yet been transmitted to the Nakalkhana. Peshkar Sahab promised to send a photocopy of the order shortly. After multiple follow-ups and a few more days of persuasion, the Peshkar finally sent the required order.
Ultimately, after a month of persistence and more than a dozen visits to different court sections, the Bare Babu handed us the certified copy of the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC (S. 183 BNSS, 2023).
We filed the Chirkut on 28 April 2025 and received the document on 29 May 2025.
Why This Matters?
This experience was both exhausting and rewarding. What might seem like a small administrative victory was, for us, a significant break from a deeply entrenched and incorrect court convention. It marked a significant deviation from a longstanding but flawed procedural practice in the Patna Civil Court. We didn’t just get a copy of a statement – we created a precedent. We challenged a rigid, outdated practice and helped clear the path for more lawyers and litigants to exercise their rights under the new law. It is a reminder that procedural justice is not just about rules on paper; it is about how those rules are implemented on the ground.
In this month-long process, we sensitized at least five different court officials to the new legal framework. We must say, the Bare Babu’s eventual willingness to understand and implement the new law was crucial. But it also highlights the urgent need for training and sensitization of court staff to the procedural laws, so that access to justice is not hindered by outdated practices. If court staff are properly informed and trained, such unnecessary delays can be minimized, and the justice delivery system can become more efficient and accessible.
For us, this wasn’t just a legal battle. It was personal. It was about the dignity of our client, the importance of trial preparedness, and the belief that every small act of resistance against outdated systems can move the wheels of justice just a bit faster.
In Patna, a Dalit woman’s journey to justice shows how even the simplest step can become a battle. To access her own court statement, she had to wait a month, make 12+ visits, and push through outdated practices.
