9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents. 2. Allegation of withholding evidence by the prosecution. 3. Relevance and necessity of the documents for the defense. 4. Interpretation of Sections 91, 172, and 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents: The petitioner, accused of an offense under Section 376(g) IPC, filed an application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to seek the production of certain documents from the police, which were not included in the charge sheet. These documents included a report lodged by the prosecutrix's father, a complaint by the prosecutrix at Mahila Thana, and items recovered at the petitioner's instance such as photos, love letters, STD bill slips, and a ledger book. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed this application, leading to the present petition. 2. Allegation of withholding evidence by the prosecution: The petitioner argued that the prosecution had withheld documents that could potentially demonstrate the fabrication of the case against him. It was contended that these documents were crucial for confronting the prosecutrix's father during cross-examination and were necessary for a fair trial. The defense claimed that the investigating agency must disclose all facts discovered during the investigation to the Trial Court and cannot present a one-sided story. 3. Relevance and necessity of the documents for the defense: The Court emphasized that justice and liberty are interrelated and essential for the protection of individuals and democracy. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the State must prove the guilt. The Court noted that the documents sought by the petitioner were necessary or desirable for the trial and should have been produced by the prosecution. The right to defend, which flows from the fundamental right to "life" and "personal liberty" under Article 21 of the Constitution, is substantive and not illusory. The defense must be built from the beginning of the trial, and withholding evidence until the defense stage is unjust. 4. Interpretation of Sections 91, 172, and 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code: - Section 172 Cr.P.C.: Requires police to maintain a case diary and allows the Court to use these diaries to aid in inquiry or trial. Although the accused cannot call for these diaries, they can be used to contradict a witness or refresh memory. - Section 173 Cr.P.C.: Mandates the police to submit the charge sheet and all relevant documents to the Magistrate. Sub-section (6) allows withholding parts of statements that are not relevant or disclosure of which is not essential for justice or is against public interest. However, this power must be exercised with reason and within limits. - Section 91 Cr.P.C.: Empowers the Court to summon documents or things necessary or desirable for any investigation, inquiry, or trial. This section is not subject to Sections 172 and 173, allowing the Court to call for documents even if withheld by the prosecution. The Court held that Section 91 should be interpreted purposively to enable the Court to discover the truth and do complete justice. The prosecution cannot withhold evidence that weakens its case against the accused and must present all relevant information to the Court. 5. Rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court reiterated that the right to defend is part of the fundamental right to "life" and "personal liberty" under Article 21. Denying the accused access to necessary documents prevents the construction of a proper defense and violates the right to a fair trial. The Court must ensure that justice is done and appears to be done, maintaining public faith in the judiciary. Conclusion: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 22.8.05 was quashed. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, was directed to call for the report lodged by the prosecutrix's father, the complaint at Mahila Thana, and the documents recovered at the instance of the accused. Copies of these documents were to be provided to the petitioner within three weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.
|
