Summary
A death reference and the connected appeals were listed for final hearing before the Madras High Court. The appellant, relying on Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wrote to the police asking for documents and then challenged the hearing date in the Supreme Court. All three judges dismissed the appeal as a delaying tactic. Trivedi J. held that Draft Rule 4 of the Criminal Practice Rules would bind only once adopted, and only at the investigation and trial stages. Bhat J., for himself and Lalit CJ, disagreed on that point. The accused's right to a list of unrelied material flows from the Court's own 2021 order. The right is exercised once at trial, and at the appellate stage only under Section 391 CrPC.
Issues
- Whether an accused may stall the hearing of a death reference and appeals by demanding, under Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Draft Rule 4 of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, documents seized but not relied upon by the prosecution.
- Whether the disclosure requirement in Manoj applies before the Draft Rules are adopted by High Courts and States, and at what stage.
Provisions considered
- Rule 4 and Explanation, Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021Requires that the accused be given a list of statements, documents and objects seized, specifying those not relied upon; the opinions differed on whether it binds before formal adoption. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11)
- Sections 91, 207 and 391, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Production of unrelied material may be sought at trial under Section 91, while at the appellate stage additional evidence is governed by Section 391. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Section 366, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Death references must be given utmost priority and decided expeditiously, preferably within six months. (¶¶ 4, 6)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaFair disclosure of material is a facet of the accused's right to a fair trial (Bhat J.).
Held
- Trivedi J.: the accused's dilatory tactics, after assurances that the hearing would proceed, are deprecated; death references must be given utmost priority and decided preferably within six months. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Trivedi J.: Manoj's direction must be read with the suo motu order of 20.04.2021; until the High Courts and States adopt the Draft Rules, Draft Rule 4 cannot be pressed into service, and once adopted it applies during investigation and trial, not at the appellate stage; all documents relied upon were supplied under Section 207 and the demand was reprehensible. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Bhat J. (for himself and Lalit CJ), agreeing with the dismissal but not with that reasoning, held that the right to a list of seized but unrelied material arises from the Court's own order in the suo motu proceedings and from Manu Sharma, and cannot depend on whether a State has adopted the Draft Rules.
- Bhat J.: the disclosure requirement applies at trial after charges are framed; one opportunity is given, the trial court decides relevance under Section 91 and may refuse repeated or delaying requests, and at the appellate stage the accused's rights are worked out under Section 391; the appellant's late letter, sent after the appeal was set down for hearing, was a bid to prolong the hearing.
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 1926 of 2022 against the Madras High Court's order dated 14.09.2022 in R.T. No. 2 of 2021 dismissed; registry directed to circulate the order to all High Courts.