Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 8384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
SRI PRAJWAL REVANNA – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY KARNATAKA BY CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 206 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI ARUN G.
For the Respondents: SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA.
The accused is entitled to receive all documents, including electronic records, relied upon by the prosecution to ensure a fair trial as mandated by Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 207 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66E - Accused seeks clone copies of digital evidence in a sexual offence case; application rejected by lower court - Court held that accused is entitled to access all documents relied upon by prosecution, including electronic records, to ensure a fair trial - The right to a fair trial under Article 21 mandates that the accused must be provided with copies of all relevant evidence. (Paras 50, 39, 38)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of multiple offences under IPC and the IT Act, filed an application under Section 207 seeking clone copies of digital data referenced in the charge sheet. The application was rejected on grounds of privacy and relevance.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that all documents, including electronic records, must be provided to the accused if the prosecution intends to rely on them, ensuring compliance with Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. and the right to a fair trial.
Issues: Whether the accused is entitled to receive all documents, including electronic records, relied upon by the prosecution as per Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of providing the accused with all materials relied upon by the prosecution, as withholding such documents would infringe on the accused's right to a fair trial. It established that electronic records are to be treated as documents under the law.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions to furnish necessary documents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding document access. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of document provision. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final conclusion on document access. (Para 8) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 10-12-2014 by which the application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C comes to be rejected. Consequential direction is sought for supply of a clone copy of digital data, relied on in the charge sheet material, to the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri Arun G, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Jagadeesha B N., learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The petitioner, an accused, in C.C.34283 of 2024 is being tried for offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354B, 354C, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(k), 506, 201 of the IPC and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act , 2000. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the defence of the petitioner or the allegations of the prosecution. The petitioner files an application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. seeking certain documents. The documents are the clone copies of all the contents in the mobile phone, be it concerning the crime or other than the crime. This comes to be rejected by the concerned Court, in terms of the order impugned. The non- acceptance of the application in the manner that the petitioner wanted, has driven him to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel Sri Arun G appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the investigating officer investigating crime No.107 of 2024 has communicated to the Director, State FSL to conduct forensic examination on articles seized and therefore, the said articles which were given for examination should be made available to him in its entirety. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court interpreting Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
5. Per-contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B N Jagadeesh would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to all the documents of others, he would definitely be entitled to those documents which concerns the complainant and those documents have all been furnished. He would further contend that he would become entitled to certain electronic documents strictly in consonance with what the Apex Court has held in the case of P. GOPALKRISHNAN v. STATE OF KERALA , (2020) 9 SCC 161 He would submit that the prosecution would show the documents that are needed. He can take a clone copy of the same, but other than that of the complainant, it would be breach of privacy if the petitioner is given all the contents of the mobile phone or the source from which the contents were drawn.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue now lies in a narrow compass. The complaint and the summary charge sheet need not be gone into. The petitioner files an application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the application reads as follows:
“APPLICATION UNDER SEC.207 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
The accused above begs to submit as follows:
1. The complainant/ investigation agency have filed the final report in the above case by citing alleged offences under Sec. Sec.376(2)(n), 376(2)(k), 354A, 354B 354C, 506, 509, 201 IPC R/w.Sec.66(E) I.T Act. Thereafter this Hon'ble Court was pleased to take cognizance on the charge- sheet and the accused is in judicial custody in another case, as such this Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue the body warrant against accused for the purposes of this case.
2. The accused submits that the final report initially filed in the present runs up to 1652 pages in 4 volumes and thereafter additional charge- sheet/Volume 5 was submitted by investigation agency. The accused is furnished with the
