Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court by a majority, with a 2:1 ratio, has held that even without adopting ‘Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020’ (which otherwise mandates) all statements, documents and material objects should be furnished to an accused. However the bench was of the unanimous opinion that the appeal was made at such time, where it appeared that it is to prolong the hearing, therefore dismissed the appeal.

“Saying that the right of the accused to receive the said list of documents, material, etc. would only apply after the draft rules are adopted would lead to an anomalous situation”, noted former CJI UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat in a concurring majority judgment.  While in dissent Justice Bela M. Trivedi was of the opinion that disguised attempts to delay the hearing with such demands seeking documents from the Investigating Officer was absolutely reprehensible, when the Draft Rules are not even adopted.

The submission was 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. The bench was divided on the principle of furnishing the material documents to the accused. The bench was thus divided on this principle.

The judgment that was relied on by the majority opinion (Manoj vs State of MP) to uphold the right of the accused to fair trial, Justice Trivedi was of the opinion that it was sheer misconception of the law and misinterpretation of the observations made by this Court in case that was made the basis.

The bench with a majority opined,  “That some High Courts or governments of the States/ Union Territories have failed to comply with this court’s order and are 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 order (in Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In re. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2021) 10 SCC 598)”. Further that to say that the judgment in Manoj vs State in relation to this, and the right of the accused to receive the said list of documents, material, etc. would only apply after the draft rules are adopted – would lead to an anomalous situation where the right of the accused in one state, prejudicially differs from that afforded to an accused, in another.

In dissenting opinion, Justice Bela M. Trivedi was of the opinion that such disguised attempts to delay the hearing with demands certain documents from the Investigating Officer was absolutely reprehensible and further opined, “Unless and until the Draft Rules as suggested by the court in 12 the suo moto proceedings are incorporated by the High Courts in the Rules governing criminal trials and unless the consequential amendments are made by the State Governments and the Union of India in the Police and other Manuals, the same could not have been pressed into service by any party to a criminal proceeding”.

Moreover, the Draft Rule no. 4 with regard to the supply of documents under Sections 173, 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. is part of the Chapter I of the said Draft Rules, to be followed during the course of investigation and before the commencement of the trial. The said Draft Rule no.4 as and when brought into force after following the due process of law could be pressed into service by the accused only during the course of investigation and during the course of trial, and not at the appellate stage before the High Court or the Supreme Court, Justice Trivedi further noted.

In the present matter some of the accused were sentenced to death penalty and some with life imprisonment and other sentences. The accused had filed nine separate appeals before the High Court challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court.  Justice Trivedi lamented on the counsels for the delay in a matter where some are on death row while some have been granted life imprisonment.

 

Case Title: P. Ponuswamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu