Accused has the right to access all investigation materials, including those not relied upon by prosecution, ensuring a fair trial.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the sole accused in SC No.440/2020 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court - IV, Kollam (for short, the trial court). He faces trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

2. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner committed murder of his wife.

3. During the investigation stage, the petitioner requested the investigating agency to subject him to scientific test including brain mapping, polygraph and narco analysis to prove his innocence. Accordingly, brain mapping and polygraph tests were conducted, but narco analysis was not conducted.

4. The prosecution, however, did not produce the result of scientific examination along with the final report. Hence, the petitioner filed Annexure I application at the trial court as Crl.M.P.No.825/20 to give a direction to the investigating officer to produce the scientific examination result of brain mapping and polygraph examination. The trial court after hearing both sides dismissed the said application as per Annexure II order. The said order is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.

5. Originally the de facto complainant/mother of the victim was not impleaded in the Crl.M.C. After hearing the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, this court disposed of the above Crl.M.C as per the order dated 2/8/2022 setting aside the impugned order allowing Annexure I application. Thereafter, the de facto complainant/mother filed two applications, Crl.M.A.No.1/2022 to recall the order dated 2/8/2022 and Crl.M.A.No.2/2022 to implead her as the additional 2^nd respondent. Crl.M.A.No.2/2022 was allowed and the defacto complainant was impleaded as the additional 2^nd respondent. Since the order dated 2/8/2022 was passed without hearing the additional 2^nd respondent, it was recalled.

6. I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Arun Babu, the learned counsel for the additional 2^nd respondent and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

7. It is not in dispute that during the stage of investigation, the investigating agency conducted brain mapping as well as polygraph test of the petitioner at his instance. However, the result of those examinations was not made part of the final report. The petitioner was not supplied with the copies of the same also. The trial court dismissed Annexure I application holding that the production of those documents are not necessary or desirable at this stage. In Annexure I, the petitioner has specifically stated that the test results of brain mapping and polygraph examination are directly connected to the facts in issue and were deliberately suppressed by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in a suo motu proceedings in Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [ (2021) 10 SCC 598 ]. The Supreme Court in the above decision has given certain guidelines regarding the procedure and practices relating to investigation, prosecution, trial, evidence etc. to be followed in criminal trial. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Supreme Court specifically stated that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208 of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but not relied on should also be furnished to the accused. It was specifically observed that if the accused is of the view that such materials are necessary to be pro