Accused's Entitlement to Documents under Section 91 CrPC - only in exceptional Cases

Introduction

In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, the admissibility of evidence plays a pivotal role in ensuring fair trials and upholding justice. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin v. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy Also Known... (7 December 2017), deliberated upon the significance of undisclosed material with the investigator and its impact on framing charges in criminal cases.

Background of the Case

The case involved Gopal Sheelum Reddy alias Nithya Bhaktananda, charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent sought the summoning of undisclosed material with the investigator, not included in the chargesheet, under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The High Court, contrary to the trial court's view, granted this application, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Key Arguments

The appellants contended that the High Court's decision contradicted established legal precedents, citing the State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, which emphasized that the defense shouldn't trigger a mini trial at the charge-framing stage.

On the other hand, the defense argued that if crucial material, integral to the case and deliberately omitted from the chargesheet by the investigator, exists, the court has the authority to summon such material under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court reiterated that while ordinarily, the accused cannot evoke Section 91 at the stage of framing charges, the court, driven by the pursuit of justice, can exercise its power if the undisclosed material is deemed crucial to the charge-framing issue.

Referring to Debendra Nath Padhi, the Court emphasized the necessity or desirability of the document at a particular stage of proceedings. It clarified that the accused's right to seek orders under Section 91 typically arises during the defense stage, not during charge-framing. The section doesn't inherently grant the accused the right to present documents for their defense at the charge-framing stage.

Additionally, the Court cited Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, emphasizing the court's role as the custodian of justice and acknowledging its authority to prevent accused individuals from manipulating investigative or prosecuting agencies.

Conclusion

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's view, asserting that if substantial evidence of high quality is deliberately withheld by the investigator or prosecutor, the court isn't barred from summoning or relying on it, even if absent from the chargesheet. However, it clarified that this doesn't grant an inherent right to the defense to invoke Section 91 at the charge-framing stage without the court's satisfaction.

The directive was given to the trial court to proceed with the charge-framing issue considering the observations made, emphasizing the expeditious handling of the matter in accordance with the law.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fair trials and upholding the integrity of criminal proceedings, maintaining a delicate balance between the rights of the accused and the pursuit of justice.