9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigating 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. - UDAY UMESH LALIT CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT J. AND BELA M. TRIVEDI J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Yug Mohit Chaudhury, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B , AOR Ms. Tanya Shrivastava, Adv Mr. Alagu Raja Bharathi B., Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M., Adv. Ms. Priya R., Adv. Mr. Sabari Balapandian, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sharma, Adv. Mr. G. Sriram, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l) No. 1/2017. The court noted salient aspects and inconsistencies in the practices and rules of the High Courts. 5. A wide consultative process was undertaken. Firstly, High Courts and governments of States/Union Territories, filed their responses. Taking note of these, the amici curiae prepared a consultation paper and invited written responses from stakeholders. Next, a colloquium was convened on 30.03.2019 to discuss this paper, wherein High Courts, governments of States/Union Territories and police departments participated. Based on the feedback, the amici curiae prepared a report containing the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020 which was taken on record on 05.03.2020 and made available (accessed on 31.10.2022, 18:28 pm). publicly through the Supreme Court website. 6. Before passing directions on the same, this court thought it appropriate to hear the High Courts again, on these draft rules. See order dated 27.10.2020, and again on 19.01.2021 in Suo Motu WP (Crl) No. 1/2017 Once responses were received from all High Courts, the matter was heard; in the final order dated 20.04.2021 Reported as Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In re. v. St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules of Criminal Practice 2021, which was appended to, and considered part and parcel of this court s order, reads as follows: 4. Supply of documents under Sections 173, 207 and 208 CrPC. (i) Every accused shall be supplied with statements of witness recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and a list of documents, material objects and exhibits seized during investigation and relied upon by the investigating officer (IO) in accordance with Sections 207 and 208 CrPC. Explanation : The list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits shall specify statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the investigating officer. 9. The matter was disposed of with the following directions: 19. The Court is of the opinion that the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, (which are annexed to the present order, and shall be read as part of it) should be hereby finalised in terms of the above discussion. The following directions are hereby issued: 19.1. All High Courts shall take expeditious steps to incorporate the said Draft Rules, 2021 as part of the rules governing criminal trials, and ensure that the existing rules, notifications, orders and pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 9 SCC 276 , - which had highlighted how the requirement of disclosure, is an intrinsic part of the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. This was also reaffirmed in P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala (2020) 9 SCC 161 where it was held that furnishing of documents to the accused under Section 207 of the 1973 Code is a facet of right of the accused to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution . Relying upon its previous decision in V.K. Sasikala v. State (2012) 9 SCC 771 , this court noted in Manjeet Singh Khera: In that case, the documents were forwarded to the court under Section 173(5) CrPC but were not relied upon by the prosecution and the accused wanted copies/inspection of those documents. This Court held that it was incumbent upon the trial court to supply the copies of these documents to the accused as that entitlement was a facet of just, fair and transparent investigation/trial and constituted an inalienable attribute of the process of a fair trial which Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees to every accused. We would like to reproduce the following portion of the said judgment discuss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing material that may have exculpatory value. It is this gap, that was recognised and addressed (paragraph 11 of final order) in the suo-moto proceedings, and suitably codified in the text of the Draft Rule 4, by introducing a requirement of providing a list (at the commencement of the trial) of all documents, material, evidence, etc. seized during the course of investigation or in the possession of the prosecution, regardless of whether the prosecution plans to rely on it. The facts in Manoj, having reflected such a situation (of suppression of evidence that favoured the accused) similarly, necessitated elaboration of this right. 14. The framework that emerges (by reading Section 173, 207, 208 and Draft Rule 4) is that based on the list of statements, documents, etc. received at the commencement of the trial, the accused can seek appropriate orders under Section 91 of the CrPC, wherein the magistrate on application of judicial mind, may decide on whether it ought to be called for. Additionally, by virtue of Section 391 Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken. (1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to receive the said list of documents, material, etc. would only apply after the draft rules are adopted would lead to an anomalous situation where the right of the accused in one state, prejudicially differs from that afforded to an accused, in another. 17. As stated earlier, the requirement of disclosure elaborated on in Manoj, not only was premised on the formulation of draft rules, but normatively premised on the ratio of the three-judge bench decision in Manu Sharma (supra). In these circumstances, the proper and suitable interpretation of the disclosure requirement in Manoj (supra) would be that: (a) It applies at the trial stage, after the charges are framed. (b)The court is required to give one opportunity of disclosure, and the accused may choose to avail of the facility at that stage. (c) In case documents are sought, the trial court should exercise its discretion, having regard to the rule of relevance in the context of the accused s right of defence. If the document or material is relevant and does not merely have remote bearing to the defence, its production may be directed. This opportunity cannot be sought repeatedly the trial court can decline to issue orders, if i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 17.10.2022, on which date, all the counsel assured that they would not seek any adjournment. 19. This Court explain to the learned counsel that the case of the persons, who have been sentenced to death, has to be completed within six months, whereas, in this case, for the last one year, there has not been any progress on account of noncooperation of the accused. Under Section 386 Cr.P.C., if the counsel for the appellant or the Public Prosecutor does not appear, it is open to this Court to peruse the records and proceed with the case. When we explained to Mrs. Anjana Prakash that the Public Prosecutor may be permitted to begin the case at least and that she may reply to his submissions later, she requested us not to do that, as it would be easier if both sides submissions are heard continuously. She repeatedly assured us that no one would seek adjournment on 17.10.2022. Hence, more out of courtesy and respect for Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Senior Advocate, the case is adjourned to 17.10.2022. 3) The appellant instead of appearing before the High Court on 17.10.2022, rushed to this Court challenging the said order. This Court on 17.10.2022 passed the following order:- Mr. Gopal Sankaran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the matters were listed on 06.09.2022 on which date the hearing was adjourned at the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and therefore, it was again adjourned to 14.09.2022 for final disposal. On 14.09.2022, though the State Public Prosecutor was ready to argue, one of the learned senior advocates from Delhi appeared before the High Court and requested the High Court to adjourn the hearing. At that time, the State Public Prosecutor drew the attention of the High Court to a letter dated 05.09.2022 sent by Mr. G. Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the present appellant (accused no. 1) P. Ponnusamy, the accused no. 02 Mary Pushpam and the accused no. 03 Basil, addressed to the Inspector (Law and Order) E-4 Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai, asking him to produce certain documents, stating therein inter-alia that the said documents were required for fair adjudication of their case, in the light of the Supreme Court s decision (in case of Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 248-250 of 2015 decided on 20th May, 2022). The said letter was placed on record by the State Public Prosecutor. On the said date i.e., 14.09.2022, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter addressed to the Inspector (Law and Order) E-4 Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai requesting him to produce certain documents as mentioned in the letter, which were required for fair adjudication in the case. He further submitted that till the copies of the documents demanded by the accused as mentioned in the said letter were furnished to them, it was not possible for them to proceed with the hearing of the appeals or the Reference case pending before the High Court. According to them, the observations made by this Court in para 177 to 179 in case of Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) were very much significant for safeguarding the rights of the accused to a fair investigation carried out by the mighty State s police machinery; and that the interest of the justice warranted that the further hearing of RT No. 02 of 2021 pending before the High Court be stayed till the appellants and other accused were provided with the documents demanded by them. 8) The said submissions made by the learned senior advocates appearing for the appellant deserve to be outrightly rejected, having been advanced out of sheer misconception of the law and misinterpretation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ractices adopted by the trial courts in the criminal proceedings. The said suo moto proceedings were registered as Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, in Re Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2021) 10 SCC 598 . The said case related, amongst others to deficiencies/lapses with regard to the manner in which the documents (list of witnesses, list of exhibits, list of material objects) referred to and presented and exhibited in the judgements, and lack of uniform practices in regard to preparation of injury reports, deposition of witnesses, translation of statements, numbering and nomenclature of witnesses, labeling of material objects etc. which often led to a asymmetries and hamper appreciation of evidence, which in turn had a tendency prolonging the proceedings especially at the appellate stage. The court in the said case had noticed that on these aspects, some High Courts had framed the rules, however some had not, which had led to a lack of clarity and uniformity in regard to the presentation of trial court proceedings and records, for the purpose of appreciation at the High Court and Supreme Court level. The court in the said case, after consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... force. Unless and until the Draft Rules as suggested by the court in the suo moto proceedings are incorporated by the High Courts in the Rules governing criminal trials and unless the consequential amendments are made by the State Governments and the Union of India in the Police and other Manuals, the same could not have been pressed into service by any party to a criminal proceeding. The observations made in para 179 of the judgement in case of Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra) were in the context of the said directions given by the court in the suo moto proceedings and therefore were required to be read in conjunction with the earlier paras 177 and 178 of the said judgement. Meaning thereby, the prosecution is expected to comply with the Draft Rule no. 4 pertaining to the supply of documents, as and when the said set of Draft Rules are adopted by the High Courts and State Governments, giving them a statutory force. 11) May it be noted that in any case, 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
