2022 (11) TMI 1504 - SC - Indian Laws

Request for additional documents - right to fair trial and investigation - applicability of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 - HELD THAT - The Draft Rule no. 4 with regard to the supply of documents under Sections 173, 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. is part of the Chapter I of the said Draft Rules, to be followed during the course of investigation and before the commencement of the trial. The said Draft Rule no.4 as and when brought into force after following the due process of law could be pressed into service by the accused only during the course of investigation and during the course of trial, and not at the appellate stage before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The attempt made on behalf of the appellant accused and the other accused to delay the hearing of the appeals and the death Reference case pending before the High Court, under the guise that they had demanded certain documents from the Investigating Officer was absolutely reprehensible. As observed by the High Court in the impugned order, all the papers relied upon by the prosecution were placed by the Investigating Officer before the trial court and copies were furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The same have got translated as legal evidence during trial and the case of the accused should have to stand or fall based on that unless additional evidence is sought to be taken. This Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the case, and dismisses the present appeal being devoid of merits. The registry is directed to circulate a copy of this order to all the High Courts, who in turn shall circulate the same to their respective subordinate courts.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant's request for additional documents was justified.
2. The applicability of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021.
3. The right to fair trial and disclosure requirements.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appellant's request for additional documents was justified:
The appellant and other co-accused were convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and other provisions, and were sentenced to death. The High Court had scheduled the final hearing of the appeals and the death reference case. However, the appellant requested additional documents from the State, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Manoj & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh* (2022). The High Court denied this request, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's request, made after the appeal was set down for hearing, appeared to be an attempt to prolong the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the appellant should have sought recourse by filing an appropriate application in accordance with the procedures set out earlier, well in time.

2. The applicability of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021:
The Supreme Court had previously issued directions in Suo Motu WP (Crl) No. 1/2017, which resulted in the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021. These rules were intended to bring about uniform best practices across the country. The Draft Rule 4 specifically required the prosecution to furnish a list of all documents, including those not relied upon, to the accused. However, the Supreme Court noted that these draft rules had not yet been adopted by all High Courts and State Governments. Therefore, the appellant's reliance on these draft rules was premature. The Court clarified that the draft rules could only be pressed into service once they had been adopted and given statutory force.

3. The right to fair trial and disclosure requirements:
The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to disclosure of all relevant documents. The Court cited previous judgments, including *Manu Sharma v. State of NCT Delhi* and *Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra*, which underscored the necessity of providing the accused with access to all material, including exculpatory evidence. The Court held that the prosecution should furnish a list of statements, documents, and material objects not relied upon by the investigating officer. This requirement was also reflected in the Draft Rule 4. However, the Court emphasized that this right to disclosure must be exercised within the procedural framework and cannot be used to delay the trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's decision to proceed with the hearing. The Court emphasized that the appellant's request for additional documents was not justified at this late stage and appeared to be an attempt to delay the proceedings. The Court also clarified that the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, while significant, had not yet been adopted and therefore could not be invoked by the appellant. The right to a fair trial, including the right to disclosure, was reaffirmed, but it must be exercised within the established procedural framework. The registry was directed to circulate a copy of this order to all High Courts for further dissemination to their subordinate courts.