In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1926 of 2022-SC- Based on list of statements & documents received at commencement of trial, accused can seek appropriate orders u/s 91 CrPC; By virtue of sec.391, Appellate Court may take further evidence upon recording reasoning: SC
Justices S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit & Bela M. Trivedi [07-11-2022]

Read Judgment:  P. PONNUSAMY  Vs  THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, November 9, 2022: While the concern of delay in conclusion of trial undoubtedly weighs heavily in the mind of the judge, however it cannot entail compromise of the right of the accused to fair investigation and trial, the Supreme Court has observed.

The Larger Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi dismissed  the present appeal stemming from the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. In those proceedings, the High Court fixed the hearing of the main proceeding – which was  a death reference. 

The appellant and some other accused person were convicted under Section 302 of the IPC along with other provisions and Section 120B. The appellants-accused were sentenced to death. Consequently, reference was made to the High Court which was seized of all the proceedings and heard from time to time.

The final order proposed by Justice Bela Trivedi rejecting an appeal was  in the  opinion of this Court justified in the circumstances of the case. However, the Court was   unable to agree with the observations made during the course of her order as to the nature of the directions made in a Suo Motu Writ Petition concerning the right of the accused to be supplied with documents or material, seized or collected during the investigation, but not relied upon. 

While hearing a criminal appeal and connected matters, concern was raised regarding common deficiencies and practices adopted by trial courts in the course of criminal trial and disposal of cases, in the absence of uniform guidelines. This resulted in the Suo Motu Writ Petition, wherein this court appointed amici curiae, and issued notice to all High Courts and governments of all States and Union Territories, so that  general consensus could be arrived  regarding the need to amend rules of practice/criminal manuals to bring about uniform best practices across the country.

The amici curiae prepared a consultation paper and invited written responses from stakeholders. Next, a colloquium was convened to discuss this paper, wherein High Courts, governments of States/Union Territories and police departments participated. Based on the feedback, the amici curiae prepared a report containing the ‘Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020’ which was taken on record on March 5, 2020 and made available publicly through the Supreme Court website.  Before passing directions on the same, this court thought it appropriate to hear the High Courts again, on these draft rules. 

Once responses were received from all High Courts, the matter was heard; in the final order dated April 20, 2015  it was noted that most of the suggestions had been agreed upon, except in regard to few aspects – the divergence, or additional points of view, were taken note of6 . The amici curiae had pointed out that before the commencement of the trial, the accused only receives a list of documents and statements relied upon by the prosecution but is kept in the dark on other material in the possession of the prosecution, even if it has exculpatory value.

Further Rule 4 of Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021 were taken into account. As per the Bench, the framework that emerged (by reading Section 173, 207, 208 and Draft Rule 4) is that based on the list of statements, documents, etc. received at the commencement of the trial, the accused can seek appropriate orders under Section 91 of the CrPC, wherein the magistrate on application of judicial mind, may decide on whether it ought to be called for. Additionally, by virtue of Section  391 of the CrPC, the appellate court, if it deems necessary, may take further evidence (or direct it be taken by a magistrate or court of sessions) upon recording reasoning. 

This safeguards the right of the accused in a situation where concern has been raised regarding evidence or material in possession of the prosecution, that had not been furnished, but was material to the trial and disposal of the case, the Court observed. 

By way of Miscellaneous Application, this court was apprised of the fact that some states had complied, and others  had not complied with the directions in final order regarding adoption of the Draft Rules and amending police manuals, etc. in a time-bound manner (6 months). The states were directed to comply within 8 weeks and the matter was  still pending. 

Some High Courts or governments of the States/ Union Territories failed to comply with this court’s order and delayed in adopting the Draft Rules or amending the concerned police/practice manuals, cannot prejudice the right of an accused (to receive this list of the statements, documents, material, etc. in the possession of the prosecution), which has unequivocally been recognized by this court in its final in  the suo-moto proceedings, the Court noted. 

Having regard to the above discussion,  the Court  opined that the circumstances in which the request was made – through the letter after appeal was set down for hearing despite repeated opportunities, was not justified. 

Noting that the appellant could have sought recourse by filing an appropriate application, in accordance with the procedures set out above, well in time and the appeal made at this late stage appeared to prolong the hearing, the Bench dismissed the appeal.