Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J.
R. Bharathi – Appellant
Vs.
State Rep by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1132 of 2018, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 13221 of 2018
Decided On : 22-10-2018
N. Manokaran, Adv., S. Thankira, Adv.
Headnote:
Section 207 Cr.P.C. - Refusal to furnish documents - V.K.Sasikala v. State, Siddharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma V. State, Tarun Tyagi v. CBI, G.Arun @ Arunkumar v. State - The court discussed the mandatory nature of furnishing relied upon documents to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and emphasized the accused's right to receive all documents and statements relied upon by the prosecution. The court also highlighted the duty of the investigating agency and the courts to ensure fair disclosure and the accused's right to access documents for a fair trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. to disprove the prosecution case and establish their innocence. The lower court refused to furnish the statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., and CD for the video graph of the victim, citing the possibility of misuse by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to receive the CD copy of the victim girl under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and directed the respondent police to furnish the CD copy with the condition that it should not be misused.
Issues: Refusal to furnish relied upon documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., possibility of misuse by the accused, entitlement of the accused to receive CD copy of the victim girl.
Ratio Decidendi: The accused has a statutory right to receive all documents and statements relied upon by the prosecution for a fair trial. The duty of the investigating agency and the courts is to ensure fair disclosure and the accused's right to access documents.
Final Decision: The petitioners were allowed to receive the CD copy of the victim girl under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. with a condition to not misuse it, and the Criminal Revision Case was allowed.
M Dhandapani, J.
This Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.09.2018 made in Crl.M.P.No.457 of 2018 in S.C.No.111 of 2018 wherein the lower Court has refused to furnish the documents sought for by the petitioners under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
2. The case of the petitioners, who were arrayed as A1 to A3, is that one Alena, who is a citizen of Russia, visited the temple at Thiruvannamalai. It is alleged that at that time, some of the accused persons misbehaved with the victim girl, thereby caused injuries on her body.
3. During the course of investigation, the first accused Bharathi was arrested and he gave a confession statement, implicating the accused 2 & 3. Accordingly, they were taken to the police station on 16.07.2018 and after enquiry, they were remanded to judicial custody on 19.07.2018. After investigation, the respondent police has filed a final report on 24.07.2018 and the incomplete copies of the final report were given to the petitioners on 27.07.2018. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed a petition under Section 207 Cr.P.C., to furnish nine relied upon documents. Even though the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 has furnished eight documents, except the document no.1 viz., the statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., and CD for the said video graph of the victim, the learned Judicial Magistrate has directed the petitioners to apply and get it from the learned Sessions Court at the time of trial.
4. After committal proceedings, the lower Court has assigned S.C.No.111 of 2018 and thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge has made-over the case to the Mahila Court.
5. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared and filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.457 of 2018 under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., to furnish a video copy of the CD, which was recorded in camera by the learned Judicial Magistrate. However, the same was dismissed, against which, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner.
6. The prosecution has filed a counter inter alia contending that the statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate, Arni during the course of her treatment at General Hospital, Tiruvannamali. Thereafter, the petitioners had approached the police station for furnishing C.D. copy and the same was opposed by the police and after hearing, the learned Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai has dismissed the case on 17.09.2018 on the ground that if the CD is supplied, the accused may misuse the same. However, the learned Magistrate has granted permission to peruse the statement recorded through video and to take note of it.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per Section 207 Cr.P.C., the respondent police has to furnish the relied upon documents to the accused persons, which is mandatory for the petitioners to disprove the prosecution case and establish their innocence.
8. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.K.Sasikala v. State Represented by Superintendent of Police reported in, (2012) 9 SCC 771, wherein the relevant portions reads as under:
18. In a recent pronouncement in Siddharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma V. State (NCT of Delhi) to which one of us (Sathasivam, J) was a party, the role of a public prosecutor and his duties of disclosure have received a wide and in-depth consideration of this Court. This Court has held that though the primary duty of a Public Prosecutor is to ensure that an accused is punished, his duties extend to ensuring fairness in the proceedings and also to ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court for a just determination of the truth so that due justice prevails. The fairness of the investigative process so as to maintain the citizens rights under Articles 19 and 21 and also the active role of the court in a criminal trial have been exhaustively dealt
