IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Dinesh Puri - Petitioner
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 351 of 2016 & Crl. M.A. 7747 of 2016
Decided On : 23-09-2016
Section 207 Cr.P.C. - Accused's Right to Documents - Sections 173 and 207 Cr.P.C. - Fair Trial and Accused's Right to Documents - Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was summoned as an accused for offences under Sections 354A/354D IPC and Sections 10 and 12 POCSO Act. The petitioner contended that relevant documents relating to the internal enquiry in relation to allegations of sexual harassment conducted by the school were collected by the investigating officer and should have been provided to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused is only entitled to documents which form part of the charge sheet and are relied upon by the investigating agency to prosecute the accused. The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for the report of internal enquiry as it was not part of the charge sheet. However, the court directed that if an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is filed, considering the necessity and desirability of the documents and the stage of trial, the Court will allow the same by directing production of the said documents to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused is entitled to receive a document collected during the course of investigation but not relied upon by the investigating agency and not forming part of the documents with the chargesheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The accused is entitled to documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. only if they form part of the charge sheet and are relied upon by the investigating agency. However, the accused can seek documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. considering the necessity and desirability of the documents and the stage of trial, including confronting the witnesses with their earlier statements.
Final Decision: The court found no error in the order framing charge for offences punishable under Sections 354A/354D IPC and 10/12 POCSO Act and rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The court directed that if an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is filed, the Court will allow the same by directing production of the said documents to the petitioner.
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner was summoned as an accused pursuant to charge sheet filed in case FIR No. 1138 of 2015 and vide order dated 22nd March, 2016 charge for offences punishable under Sections 354A/354D IPC and Sections 10 and 12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was framed against him.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is two folds. Firstly, that he filed an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. however without deciding the said application, the learned Trial Court framed charge as noted above vide order dated 22nd March, 2016 and secondly, vide order dated 11th April, 2016 dismissed the said application granting him liberty to summon the relevant record in his defence at appropriate stage under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The petitioner who is an accused in the above noted FIR relies on the part of charge sheet which notes “During investigation all relevant documents pertaining to internal enquiry conducted in school against accused Dinesh Puri was obtained and annexed with file”.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once relevant documents relating to the internal enquiry in relation to allegations of sexual harassment conducted by the school were collected by the investigating officer, the petitioner ought to have been provided copies thereof under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and having denied to give those documents the learned Trial Court could not have proceeded to frame the charge as noted above vide order dated 22nd March, 2015 and later dismissed the said application stating that since the documents were not placed with the charge sheet by the investigating officer, the petitioner was not entitled to copy thereof under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. During the course of investigation, relevant documents pertaining to internal enquiry conducted by the school against the petitioner were obtained and annexed with the file i.e. police file, however, the same were not filed as part of charge sheet.
5. Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. provides as under:-
“173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.-
(1) to (4) xx xx xx xx xx
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report-
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
(b) the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.”
6. Further Section 207 Cr.P.C. provides as under-
“207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:-
(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub- section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub- section (6) of section 173;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub- section (5) of section 173:
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused:
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either person
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.