2022 (11) TMI 1504 - SC - Indian Laws

Accused cannot demand additional documents at appellate stage under Draft Rule 4 of Criminal Practice Rules 2021

SC dismissed appeal where accused sought additional documents at appellate stage under Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021. Court held Draft Rule 4 ... Disclosure of documents not relied upon by the prosecution - supply of documents under Sections 173, 207 and 208 CrPC - right to a fair trial as facet of Article 21 - trial-stage disclosure after framing of charges - one opportunity of disclosure and trial court's discretion - remedies under Section 91 CrPC and further evidence under Section 391 CrPC - duty to adopt Draft Rules of Criminal Practice by High Courts and State Governments - priority and expeditious disposal of death reference proceedings; prohibition of dilatory tacticsDisclosure of documents not relied upon by the prosecution - supply of documents under Sections 173, 207 and 208 CrPC - right to a fair trial as facet of Article 21 - trial-stage disclosure after framing of charges - one opportunity of disclosure and trial court's discretion - remedies under Section 91 CrPC and further evidence under Section 391 CrPC - Scope and applicability of the obligation to furnish a list of materials seized or in prosecution possession but not relied upon, and the stage and manner in which such disclosure operates. - HELD THAT: - Reading the suo motu proceedings and Manoj (as explicated by this Court), the disclosure requirement - namely furnishing to the accused a list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits seized or in prosecution possession though not relied upon - is a recognition of the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21. That requirement operates at the trial stage after charges are framed; the court must give the accused one opportunity of disclosure which the accused may choose to avail. The trial court should, exercising judicial discretion with regard to relevance and the accused's right of defence, decide whether particular documents ought to be produced; this remedy is to be sought by appropriate application (including under Section 91 CrPC) and, at the appellate stage, within the parameters of Section 391 CrPC the appellate court may take or direct further evidence when necessary. The right to such disclosure is not to be rendered dependent on the formal local adoption of the Draft Rules by a High Court or State - otherwise accused in different States would be afforded divergent rights - although the Draft Rules were directed to be adopted expeditiously. The above encapsulates the determinative legal principle and procedure to be followed when disclosure is sought. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 17, 18]The Court clarifies that the disclosure obligation recognised in the suo motu proceedings and Manoj applies at the trial stage after charges are framed, affords one opportunity of disclosure subject to trial-court discretion and established remedies under Sections 91 and 391 CrPC, and is not rendered illusory by non-adoption of the Draft Rules by a State or High Court.Priority and expeditious disposal of death reference proceedings; prohibition of dilatory tactics - one opportunity of disclosure and trial court's discretion - Whether the High Court erred in refusing to direct production of documents sought by a late request and in fixing the matter for hearing - and whether the appeal should be interfered with. - HELD THAT: - The communications by the accused (a letter dated 05.09.2022 seeking documents) were made after the appeals and death reference had been listed for final hearing and after repeated opportunities; the request was belated and could have been pursued by appropriate application in accordance with the procedures already articulated. Where a request is made at a late stage with the apparent effect of delaying a hearing, particularly in death-reference proceedings which require expedition, the court may decline such a request. In the circumstances of this case the High Court's refusal to direct production of the documents at that stage and its fixation to proceed were justified; the attempt to obstruct the hearing by resort to late communications amounted to dilatory tactics and did not warrant interference by this Court. The appeal challenging the High Court order is devoid of merits. [Paras 2, 5, 6, 19]The High Court did not err in refusing the late request and in fixing the hearing; the appeal is dismissed as lacking merit.Final Conclusion: Appeal dismissed. The Court affirms the disclosure principle (supply of list of seized or prosecution-held materials not relied upon) as part of the accused's fair-trial rights at trial after framing of charges, subject to one opportunity and trial-court discretion and remedies under Sections 91/391 CrPC, but holds that the appellant's belated request made to impede a scheduled death-reference hearing was unjustified and dismissal of the appeal is upheld; registry to circulate this order to High Courts for onward circulation. Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant's request for additional documents was justified.2. The applicability of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021.3. The right to fair trial and disclosure requirements.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the appellant's request for additional documents was justified:The appellant and other co-accused were convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and other provisions, and were sentenced to death. The High Court had scheduled the final hearing of the appeals and the death reference case. However, the appellant requested additional documents from the State, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Manoj & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh* (2022). The High Court denied this request, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's request, made after the appeal was set down for hearing, appeared to be an attempt to prolong the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the appellant should have sought recourse by filing an appropriate application in accordance with the procedures set out earlier, well in time.2. The applicability of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021:The Supreme Court had previously issued directions in Suo Motu WP (Crl) No. 1/2017, which resulted in the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021. These rules were intended to bring about uniform best practices across the country. The Draft Rule 4 specifically required the prosecution to furnish a list of all documents, including those not relied upon, to the accused. However, the Supreme Court noted that these draft rules had not yet been adopted by all High Courts and State Governments. Therefore, the appellant's reliance on these draft rules was premature. The Court clarified that the draft rules could only be pressed into service once they had been adopted and given statutory force.3. The right to fair trial and disclosure requirements:The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to disclosure of all relevant documents. The Court cited previous judgments, including *Manu Sharma v. State of NCT Delhi* and *Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra*, which underscored the necessity of providing the accused with access to all material, including exculpatory evidence. The Court held that the prosecution should furnish a list of statements, documents, and material objects not relied upon by the investigating officer. This requirement was also reflected in the Draft Rule 4. However, the Court emphasized that this right to disclosure must be exercised within the procedural framework and cannot be used to delay the trial.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's decision to proceed with the hearing. The Court emphasized that the appellant's request for additional documents was not justified at this late stage and appeared to be an attempt to delay the proceedings. The Court also clarified that the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, while significant, had not yet been adopted and therefore could not be invoked by the appellant. The right to a fair trial, including the right to disclosure, was reaffirmed, but it must be exercised within the established procedural framework. The registry was directed to circulate a copy of this order to all High Courts for further dissemination to their subordinate courts.