Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
Ratti S/o Aseena - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3842 of 2020
Decided on : 01-02-2024
Section 91 CrPC - Criminal Trial - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, where the petitioner-complainant sought to quash an order allowing the accused persons to procure certain evidence at the stage of 'before framing charges' in a criminal case. The accused persons sought to produce the mobile tower location of the complainant and CCTV footage for their defense evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial Court had issued directions to produce the necessary evidence based on the nature of the allegations in the FIR and the case of prosecution. The court also noted that the accused persons were entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC after the filing of the charge-sheet, and the trial Court's decision did not warrant interference.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the trial Court to allow the accused persons to procure defense evidence at the stage of 'before framing charges' and the interpretation of Section 91 CrPC in the context of the accused persons' entitlement to invoke it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused persons were entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC after the filing of the charge-sheet, and the trial Court's decision to direct the production of necessary evidence did not amount to illegality or jurisdictional error.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the trial Court's decision to allow the accused persons to procure the necessary evidence at the stage of 'before framing charges' in the criminal case.
ORDER :
1. Petitioner-complainant has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 CrPC, seeking following prayer therein:
That it may further be directed to the learned trial court not to allow the accused-persons to use the material supplied through court during the course of recording the evidence of the prosecution and such material can only be used during the course of leading evidence in defence if any.”
2. Heard learned senior counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record placed before this Court.
3. Learned senior counsel contended that on an application dated 28.01.2020 filed by and on behalf of accused-respondents No.2 to 5 herein (Annx. 2), moved at the stage of “before framing charges” in the present criminal case, the trial Judge, vide impugned order dated 27.02.2020, has issued directions to the SHO, Police Station - Tapukda, District - Alwar to produce following information before the Court (i) The tower location of Mobile No. 9982671312 on the date of incident i.e. 20.08.2019, belonging to the petitioner-complainant and (ii) CCTV footage on the date of incident i.e. 20.08.2019 from the ATM of SBI situated opposite to Police Line, Alwar relating to the presence of accused-Sakir Ali.
Learned senior counsel contended that both information were sought to produce by the accused persons for the purpose of their defence evidence, however, application was moved by accused persons, at the stage of “before framing charges” and should not have been entertained by the trial Court. He submits that by procuring both information, accused persons want to prove that on the date of incident of murder on 20.08.2019, petitioner-complainant-Ratti, who lodged the FIR, was not present on spot at Tapukda, hence his mobile tower location from Vodafone company was prayed to be produced and further in order to take a plea of alibi, for accused-Sakir Ali that he was not present on that date at the spot rather he was present in the ATM of SBI, therefore, the CCTV footage of SBI ATM has been sought to be produced.
Learned senior counsel contends that it is the responsibility of accused persons to produce their defence evidence and they cannot be allowed to collect their defence evidence through Court or in the alternative such an application should not have been accepted by the trial Court before reaching the stage of present criminal case for defence evidence. Therefore, the trial Judge has committed illegality and jurisdictional error in allowing the application of accused persons, that too at the stage of “before framing charges”.
Learned senior counsel has also made an additional or alternative argument that after passing the impugned order dated 27.02.2020, learned trial Court vide its order dated 16.07.2020, further directed the prosecution to made available the mobile tower location and CCTV footage in pen drive and to place before the Court; Thereafter, learned trial Court vide order dated 23.07.2020 has allowed to made available four pen drives to the accused persons, therefore, at least trial Court may be directed not to allow accused persons to use such material procured through Court, during the course of recording the prosecution evidence and such material can be allowed to be used by accused persons only during course of their defence evidence.
4. Heard. Considered.
5. At the outset, it may be noted that the State has not challenged the order dated 27.02.2020 and the present petition has been filed by the complainant. In that view of matter, learned Public Prosecutor prayed to pass appropriate orders in the present petition, as this Hon’ble Court deems it j
The main legal point established in the judgment is that accused persons are entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC after the filing of the charge-sheet, and the trial Court has the jurisdiction to direc....
The accused cannot invoke Section 91 CrPC to produce documents for defense at the charge framing stage; only prosecution materials are considered.
At the stage of framing of charge, the court can only consider material produced by the prosecution. The accused cannot invoke Section 91 to prove innocence, unless material of sterling quality has b....
The accused does not have the right to invoke Sec. 91 of the CrPC for document production at the stage of framing charges; such rights are reserved for the defense stage of the trial.
(1) Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not confer any right on accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence.(2) Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at instance of accused would lie even a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's entitlement to seek production of documents under Sec. 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defense, and the expressio....
The order passed on application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was interlocutory in nature. The accused persons had not been summoned to appear before the Court concerned. The investigation in the....
The accused cannot be compelled to produce incriminatory documents based on his knowledge, as established by the interpretation of Section 94 of Cr.P.C. and relevant case laws.
Point of law: Quash of order - it is not upon accused to disprove their case or to show who the guilty is, and the entire Durden of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt would be sole....
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
