Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67948
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Mohan Kishanchand Thalani – Appellant
Versus
The State represented by Inspector of Police, W-8, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Chennai. – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 1330 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.John Sathyan, S.Ashok Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Gopinath, Mr.Rahul Jagannathan
The court ruled that withholding unmasked evidence infringes the right to a fair trial, necessitating full documentation disclosure for the accused.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 438, 442 - Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Revision against dismissal of application for documents - Petitioner asserted right to receive complete documentation for a fair trial; allegations of document masking affected procedural rights. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 173(2), 207 - Admissibility and access to evidence before trial - Court emphasized necessity of unmasked documents for fair cross-examination. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of sexual offenses against a minor, contended the prosecution’s failure to provide unmasked documents relevant to the case. Complaints were initially made in the United Kingdom, leading to the FIR registration in India. The petitioner claimed vital contradictions in the timeline of events.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner must receive full access to evidence prior to trial, ensuring a fair defense, given the masked documents by prosecution could hinder justice.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could access unmasked documents crucial for the defense and the legitimacy of the prosecution’s timeline.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the masking of evidence infringes the right to a fair trial, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure to uphold justice.
Result: Criminal Revision Case disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court emphasized the necessity of full disclosure for trial integrity. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background of the alleged offence and delays in lodging complaints. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. right to access unmasked documents essential for defense leads to fair trial. (Para 5) |
| 4. court emphasizes the need for transparency in judicial proceedings. (Para 6) |
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the order dated
16.07.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.859 of 2025, thereby dismissing the application filed under Section 173(2) r/w Section 207 of Cr.P.C and to direct the respondent/complainant to submit the complete proceedings including the alleged report dated 10.03.2018 given by LW3 to Barnet Police Station, London, before the Trial Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is that when the victim girl was in bed, the petitioner came to her room and pushed her to lay in the bed and thereafter, he grabbed her boobs. He lifted her top and sucked her boobs. He put is hand down in her pants. At that juncture, the grand mother called her for being fed. Therefore, she had left the said place. The petitioner resides in India and the victim resides in the United Kingdom. Initially in the United Kingdom, the petitioner had informed the said occurrence to her therapist who had then disclosed it to her family members. Therefore, the complaint was lodged at the Barnet Police Station, London. Thereafter, the victim's father contacted the first respondent and stated that his daughter was sexually abused by the victim's great uncle, when she was 10 years old viz., five years before when his daughter was in India. Hence, the complaint.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.20 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 . After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.31 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376AB Sections 5(m) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4. The Trial Court served the charge sheet along with annexures as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court also framed charges as against the petitioner and pending trial, the petitioner filed an application seeking complete proceedings of the documents which were annexed along with the charge sheet under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. However, it was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the same, this revision.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that certain portions in the document which is now relied upon by the prosecution, is masked by the prosecution. The admissibility of the said document can be looked into at the time of trial and as such, the petitioner is required to be served with the complete set of document without any masking of certain portions. If the substantial right to access documents is curtailed, it would violate the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the alleged incident took place in the month of August, 2012, when the victim was aged about 10 years, whereas, the present prosecution case alleged that the incident took place in the month of August, 2014, when the victim was aged about 12 years. These fundamental contradictions goes to the root of the prosecution case and can only be resolved by examining the complete and legible documents from the Barnet Police Station, London. However, the Trial Court failed to appreciate that in the month of August, 2012, the POCSO Act itself had not come into force, nor Section 376(A)(B) of IPC was in effect. The delibrate change in the date of occurrence from 2012 to 2014 appears to be a fraudulent attempt to bring the accused within the ambit of POCSO Act. Even according to the complainant, when the victim girl had visited India, in the year 2019, there was no complaint. There was huge delay in lodgment of complaint. Therefore, it is necessary to submit comple
