Compliance with documentation rules in criminal proceedings is essential for fair trial rights.

K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

W.P (Crl) No.207 of 2026 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 11thday of February, 2026 JUDGMENT The prayers in this Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows:

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to provide the list of statement of witnesses recorded during investigation in Crime No.909/2014 of Pettah PS Thiruvananthapuram, both relied on and un-relied by the prosecution in terms of Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice Kerala.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to provide the list of documents which are part of investigation in Crime No No.909/2014 of Pettah PS Thiruvananthapuram, both relied on and un-relied by the prosecution in terms of Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice Kerala.

iii. To direct the Addl.Sessions Court (Fast Track-IV), Thiruvananthapuram to dispose Ext P2 application on its files.

iv. To issue such other reliefs considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

v. To dispense with the filing of English translation of the vernacular documents produced along with the Writ Petition.”

2. The petitioner is accused No.4 in SC No.884/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-IV), Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner faces charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 452, 323, 324, 427, 307 and 302 of the IPC .

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the entire documents, both relied and un-relied by the prosecution, have not been served to him. Relying on Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to the Trial Court to see that the entire documents and statements referred to above have been served to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Akhil Sabu v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 49] in support of his submission.

4. Having regard to the submission, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the Trial Court to comply with the provisions of Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice. It is made clear that the learned Trial Judge shall not proceed with the trial in the matter before complying with Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice.

The Writ Petition (Criminal) is disposed of as above.

Sd/-