High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. DEVADASS, J.
K. Ramajeyam
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police Thiruvallore District
Crl.O.P.No. 29860 of 2013 & M.P.No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 25-11-2013
Copies of documents - Right to fair trial - Sections 449, 302, 392 and 404 of IPC - Section 207, 208 and 173(5)(7) Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The accused sought copies of certain documents for effective defense. The court dismissed the application stating that copies of documents could only be asked for before the Committal Court and not after committal to the Sessions Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused has a right to fair trial and the furnishing of copies of documents is necessary for effective defense, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused could seek copies of documents after committal to the Sessions Court under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the duty to furnish copies of case documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. is part of fair trial and necessary for the accused to defend himself effectively. The accused can ask for copies of documents even after committal to the Sessions Court.
Final Decision: The order dismissing the accused's application was set aside, and the accused was granted copies of the documents requested.
Ramajeyam, the sole accused in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.142 of 2013, pending on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee challenges dismissal of his petition in C.M.P.No.182 of 2013 seeking furnishing of copies of certain documents.
2. Petitioner is being prosecuted before the said Additional Sessions Judge, for certain serious offences, namely, under Sections 449, 302, 392 and 404 of IPC. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., by the learned Magistrate. Now, the case is pending before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee. Three prosecution witnesses have been examined.
3. At this stage, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.182 of 2013 seeking furnishing of copies of statement of witness Nos. 22, 31 to 34, 36 and copies of expert's reports.
4. On 09.10.2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application as under:-“Tamil”
(emphasis supplied)
5. The sum and substance of the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that copies of documents could be asked for only before the Committal Court and after committal, the accused cannot ask for copies of documents U/s. 207 Cr.P.C from the Sessions Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that copies of documents which ought to have been furnished to the accused by the committal Court under Section 207 Cr.P.C since were not given, it can be sought for from the Sessions Court. The documents sought for are necessary for the accused to make effective defence. Such furnishing of copies of documents is right of the accused and it is part of principle of fair trial. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel also cited V.K. SASIKALA Vs. State rep. by SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (2012 (9) SCC 771).
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that copies of statements which were not at all been recorded by the investigating Officer also have been asked for.
8. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions. Perused the impugned order and the decision cited.
9. On the accusations in the complaint (FIR), after investigation, namely, collection of evidence consisting of oral statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., seizure of documents, scientific expert reports, the Investigating Officer forming his opinion as to the commission of offence complained of, submits his report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., to the learned Magistrate. It is nothing but a summation of his conclusion on the evidence collected which implicates the accused. This (final) report also contains details of evidence, by which the accusations are to be proved as against the accused. On perusal of the same, if the trial Court finds ground to proceed further, it shall frame charges and shall proceed to try those charges.
10. "No man shall be deprived of his life and liberty except by procedure established by law" is constitutionally guaranteed to everyone. (See Article 21, Constitution of India). Only after following a 'fair, reasonable and equitable procedure', the liberty of a person can be curtailed in accordance with law (see MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1978 SC 25). Right of the accused to defend himself as against the accusations made against him is constitutionally guaranteed (see Article 22, Constitution of India).
11. No one shall be condemned unheard. Before condemning a person, reasonable opportunity must be given to him. If only the basis of accusations, materials are revealed the indicted person can defend himself effectively. Without furnishing, disclosing him copies of the incriminating materials asking him to defend will be an empty formality. It is really not giving him opportunity much less a reasonable opportunity. It is as good as denying him opportunity. These are foundations of principles of justice and fair play. These are basis of principles of natural justice.
12. Sections 207, 208 and 173(5)(7) Cr.P.C.,
AI
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.