Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI., S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
P. Ponnusamy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1926 of 2022, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9288 of 2022
Decided On : 07-11-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 173, 207 and 208 – Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021 – Rule 4 – Right of accused to be supplied with documents or material, seized or collected during investigation – There could also arise a situation wherein investigating officer ignores or does not rely on seized documents, material or evidence which favours accused and fails to forward it to Magistrate – Merely because it is not already on record of court, cannot disentitle accused from accessing material that may have exculpatory value – That some High Courts or governments of States/ Union Territories have failed to comply with this court’s order and are delayed in adopting Draft Rules or amending concerned police/practice manuals, cannot prejudice right of accused to receive this list of statements, documents, material, etc. in possession of prosecution – Circumstances in which request was made through letter after appeal was set down for hearing despite repeated opportunities, was not justified – Appellant could have sought recourse by filing an appropriate application, in accordance with procedures set out, well in time – Appeal made at this late stage, appears to be to prolong the hearing – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 13, 16, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of an order dated 14.09.2022 in RT No. 2/2021, by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. In those proceedings, High Court had by order dated 27.04.2022 fixed the hearing of main proceeding – which is a death reference.
Findings of Court:
Draft guidelines were given by this Court to all High Courts and the State Governments and Union of India in suo-motu proceedings initiated by this Court under Article 32, during course of hearing of a criminal appeal, whereby the court had noticed certain common deficiencies occurring during the course of criminal trials and certain practices adopted by the trial courts in the criminal proceedings.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes the accused's right to be supplied with documents, statements, and materials seized or collected during investigation, including exculpatory material not relied upon by the prosecution (!) (!) . - It discusses Rule 4 of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021, requiring supply of statements and list of documents seized during investigation, with an explanation that not relied upon materials must be disclosed; its final adoption and enforceability depend on incorporation by High Courts and amendments by State Governments and the Union of India (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court reiterates that the right to fair trial under Article 21 is safeguarded by disclosure obligations and that non-compliance by states cannot prejudice the accused's rights; it cautions about delays and dilatory tactics in seeking such documents via late-stage letters (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The decision references prior jurisprudence (Manu Sharma, Manoj, Manjeet Singh Khera, V.K. Sasikala) to support the principle of disclosure and the necessity of providing documents/forms under Cr.P.C. 173, 207, 208, and Section 91, and potential for additional evidence under Cr.P.C. 3917 on appeal (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, noting late requests for documents without timely proper application and emphasizes that the death reference trials must be expeditiously completed, with the High Courts directed to adopt the Draft Rules within six months and for states to amend manuals within six months (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment clarifies that Draft Rule 4 applies during investigation and pre-trial, and not necessarily at the appellate stage unless adopted and given statutory force; the court cautions against using it to delay proceedings (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of an order dated 14.09.2022 in RT No. 2/2021, by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. In those proceedings, the High Court had by order dated 27.04.2022 fixed the hearing of the main proceeding - which is a death reference.
2. The appellant and some others were convicted under Section 302 of the IPC along with other provisions and Section 120B. The appellant (A1); A3; A4; A5; A7; A8 and A9 were sentenced to death. Consequently, reference was made to the High Court which was seized of all the proceedings and heard it from time to time. On 27.04.2022 after ascertaining convenience of all the counsels the appeals were listed for final hearing on 15.06.2022. The judgment of Bela Trivedi J. has recounted all these facts in detail. The further proceedings which took place before the High Court, the hearing and the order made on 14.09.2022, declining to direct State to produce documents enlisted in letter written to the public prosecutor on behalf of the appellant on 05.09.2022, is impugned here.
3. The final order proposed by Bela Trivedi J. of rejecting an appeal is in our opinion justified in the circumstances of the case. However, we are unable to agree with the observations made during the course of her order as to the nature of the directions made in Suo Motu W.P. (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017, concerning the right of the accused to be supplied with documents or material, seized or collected during the investigation, but not relied upon.
4. While hearing a criminal appeal1 [Criminal Appeal No. 400/2006] and connected matters, concern was raised regarding common deficiencies and practices adopted by trial courts in the course of criminal trial and disposal of cases, in the absence of uniform guidelines. This resulted in Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017, wherein this court appointed amicus curiae, and issued notice to all High Courts and governments of all States and Union Territories, so general consensus could be arrived at regarding the need to amend rules of practice/criminal manuals to bring about uniform best practices across the country.2 [Order dated 30.03.2017 in Suo Motu WP (Crl) 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 amicus 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 amicus curiae prepared a report containing the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020 which was taken on record on 05.03.2020 and made available3 [https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/06032020/103012.pdf (accessed on 31.10.2022, 18:28 p.m.)] 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.4 [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. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2021) 10 SCC 598] it was noted that most of the suggestions had been agreed upon, except in regard to few aspects - the divergence, or additional points of view, were taken note of5 [Ibid, Para 9].
7. The amicus curiae had pointed out that before the commencement of the trial, the accused only receives a list of documents and statements relied upon by the prosecution but is kept in the dark on other material in the possession of the prosecution, even if it has exculpatory value. On this, the court unequivocally held:
“11........ This Cour
Right of accused to be supplied with documents or material, seized or collected during investigation – Merely because it is not already on record of court, cannot disentitle accused from accessing ma....
The right to access all investigation materials, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial under Article 21.
The duty of the Public Prosecutor to ensure fair play in the proceedings and the accused's right to fair trial and defense were central to the judgment.
The prosecution must disclose all documents, including those not relied upon, to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial.
Important Point:a) A criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of fishing and roving enquiryb) it was the duty of the prosecution to ensure fair trial for both the prosecution and the ....
Every judge who presides over a criminal trial, has authority and duty to decide on validity or relevance of questions asked of witnesses. Courts in all criminal trials should, at beginning of trial,....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, which mandates the supply of statements of witnesses recorded and a list of doc....
The accused's right to a fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution to make fair disclosure, and the accused's entitlement to relevant documents collected during the investigation were central leg....
Accused must be provided access to all documents necessary for defense to ensure a fair trial.
The right to a speedy trial is integral to the right to free and fair trial under Article 21, impacted by delays and the non-availability of documentary evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
