Accused can get documents not relied on by prosecution
The accused in a criminal trial can get the statements, documents and material objects collected during the course of investigation, but which are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer, says the Kerala High Court in Varghese Kuruvila v State of Kerala [2024: KER:66881].
Criminal Rules include specific provision for that
The Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice Kerala says, “Every accused shall be supplied with statement of witnesses recorded and a list of documents as are mentioned in Sections 173, 207 and 208 of the Code. In addition, every accused shall be supplied with a list of the material objects which the Investigation Officer relies upon. The list shall also specify those statements, documents and material objects that are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer.”
The last limb of Rule 19(4), which specifies that the list of documents to be supplied to the accused shall also specify those statements, documents, and material objects, which are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer.
Some key case laws in this regard
In Manjeet Singh Khera v State of Maharashtra [ 2013 (9) SCC 276], the Supreme Court (SC) held that the requirement of disclosure is an intrinsic part of the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The above dictum was subsequently reaffirmed in P. Gopalkrishnan v State of Kerala and Another [2020 (9) SCC 161].
The Kerala High Court in Varghese Kuruvila v State of Kerala [2024: KER:66881] cautions that the exercise of the right under Rule 19(4) will not become a camouflage/ruse for delaying the trial.
Prosecutor must file List of Documents not relied on
The SC, in Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh case, held that the prosecution, in all criminal cases, shall furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer.
The Public Prosecutor, appointed under Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), occupies a statutory office of high regard. The Public Prosecutor is an independent statutory authority who serves as officers to the court. He is never a part of the investigating agency. The role of the Public Prosecutor is intrinsically dedicated to conducting a fair trial, and not for a thirst to reach the case in conviction.
The SC extensively referred to the observations made in Siddharth Vasisht @ Manu Sharma v State of NCT Delhi on the due process protection afforded to the accused, and its effect on fair disclosure responsibilities of the public prosecution.
The SC issued some guidelines for criminal trials
The SC noted the following legal provisions regarding supply of documents etc. in the draft guidelines approved in Criminal trials guidelines regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re : To Issue Certain Guideline Regarding Inadequacies & Deficiencies in Crimnal Trial v State of Andhra Pradesh.
Every Accused shall be supplied with statements of witness recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and a list of documents, material objects and exhibits seized during investigation and relied upon by the Investigating Officer (IO) in accordance with Sections 207 and 208, CrPC.
The list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits shall specify statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer.
Fair adjudication demands fair disclosure
The purpose of providing all the documents that the prosecution relies on in the case to the accused, is to make the prosecution fair and to ensure not to punish an innocent person in any circumstances.
A document which has been obtained bona fide and has bearing on the case of the prosecution and in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, the same should be disclosed to the accused in the interest of justice and fair investigation and trial should be furnished to the accused.
Then that document should be disclosed to the accused giving him chance of fair defence, particularly when nonproduction or disclosure of such a document would affect administration of criminal justice and the defence of the accused prejudicially.
References
- Manjeet Singh Khera v State of Maharashtra [ 2013 (9) SCC 276]
- Gopalkrishnan v State of Kerala and Another [2020 (9) SCC 161]
- Varghese Kuruvila v State of Kerala [2024: KER:66881]
