AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pursuant to the order dated 14.2.2023, the SHO has filed his explanation through GA. On account of non-availability of the oath commissioners, the explanation has not been authenticated, however, the same is taken on record.
It is inter alia submitted that the statements, which were recorded by the SHO, were verbatim in terms of what was indicated by the alleged detenue. It is further submitted that similar statements were given by her before the SDM when proceedings were initiated under Section 97 and 98 of Cr.P.C., which have been produced along with the explanation.
Learned GA made submissions that looking to the fact that similar statements were made before the SDM and the order based on the said statements was passed by the SDM, apparently, the alleged detenue on account of change in mind may have indicated that she has not given the statement as recorded by the SHO and, therefore, the explanation be taken on record.
Having considered the submissions made in this regard and the fact that the alleged detenue had made similar statements as recorded by SHO before the SDM, which resulted in passing of the orders based on her statements almost a month prior to the date the statement was recorded by the SHO, taking the explanation on record, we close the matter.
The petition stands disposed of.