Supreme Court clarifies the procedure for disclosure of documents to the accused in criminal trials: P. Ponnusamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 7 November 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 1004
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Can an accused demand documents not relied upon by the prosecution at the appellate stage? The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed the issue of providing a list of all documents, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, to the accused. This judgment clarifies the extent of disclosure required in criminal trials, particularly concerning documents not presented by the prosecution. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, with Justice S. Ravindra Bhat authoring the opinion. There was also a separate opinion by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The appellant, P. Ponnusamy, along with eight other accused, was convicted by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Chennai, in Sessions Case No. 348/2015. They were found guilty of offences under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 109 (abetment), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Some accused received the death penalty, while others were sentenced to life imprisonment and other terms.

The Sessions Court referred the death penalty to the High Court of Judicature at Madras for confirmation, registered as RT No. 02 of 2021. The accused also filed separate appeals challenging their convictions, which were tagged with the death reference case.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially scheduled the final hearing for 15.06.2022, but it was adjourned. Subsequently, the hearing was set for 06.09.2022, and then adjourned again at the request of the appellant’s counsel. On 14.09.2022, the High Court was ready to proceed, but a senior advocate representing the appellant requested an adjournment, citing a letter dated 05.09.2022, asking for additional documents. The High Court, after receiving assurances that no further adjournments would be sought, scheduled the next hearing for 17.10.2022. Instead of appearing before the High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the Constitution of India, including:

• Section 173, CrPC: This section deals with the report of the police officer on completion of investigation. Specifically, sub-section (6) requires the investigating officer to forward all documents, material, and evidence to the Magistrate.
• Sections 207 and 208, CrPC: These sections mandate the supply of copies of police reports and other documents to the accused at the commencement of the trial.
• Section 391, CrPC: This section empowers the appellate court to take additional evidence or direct it to be taken if necessary.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted to include the right to a fair trial.

The court also referred to the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, particularly Rule 4, which requires the prosecution to furnish a list of all documents, material objects, and exhibits, including those not relied upon by the investigating officer.

The court emphasized that the right to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, includes the right to disclosure of all relevant documents.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that they had requested certain documents from the investigating officer on 05.09.2022, which were necessary for a fair adjudication of their case, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
• The appellant contended that the High Court should stay the hearing of the appeals and the death reference case until the requested documents were provided.
• The appellant submitted that the observations made by the Supreme Court in Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh regarding the disclosure of documents were significant for safeguarding the rights of the accused.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that all documents relied upon by the prosecution were already placed before the trial court and copies were furnished to the accused under Section 207 of the CrPC.
• The respondent contended that the case should be decided based on the evidence presented during the trial, unless additional evidence is required.
• The respondent highlighted that the appellant’s request for documents was a delaying tactic, given that the case was a death reference case, which should be completed expeditiously.
• The respondent pointed out that the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, were not yet in force and therefore, could not be relied upon by the appellant.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in their attempt to leverage the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh to seek access to documents not relied upon by the prosecution, even at the appellate stage. This is a novel interpretation of the disclosure requirements, aiming to broaden the scope of what must be provided to the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to receive copies of documents not relied upon by the prosecution at the appellate stage, based on the decision in Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021.

The court also considered the sub-issue of whether the High Court was correct in proceeding with the hearing despite the appellant’s request for documents.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Siddharth Vasisht @ Manu Sharma v. State of NCT Delhi [2010] 6 SCC 1: The court relied on this case to emphasize the dual role of the public prosecutor and the court in ensuring a fair trial.

✓ Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 677]: The court clarified that the disclosure requirement under this judgment applies at the trial stage, not the appellate stage.

✓ Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 9 SCC 276: The court reiterated that the requirement of disclosure is an intrinsic part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

✓ V.K. Sasikala v. State [2012] 9 SCC 771: The court affirmed the right of the accused to access documents forwarded to the court but not relied upon by the prosecution, but clarified that this is applicable at the trial stage.

✓ P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala [2020] 9 SCC 161: The court reaffirmed that providing documents to the accused under Section 207 of the CrPC is a crucial part of a fair trial.

✓ Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In re. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [2021] 10 SCC 598: The court discussed the need for uniform guidelines and practices in criminal trials across states, but clarified that the Draft Rules were not yet in force.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant’s request for documents was a delaying tactic and that the disclosure requirement under Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh applies at the trial stage, not at the appellate stage. The court emphasized that all documents relied upon by the prosecution had already been provided to the accused under Section 207 of the CrPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to prevent delays in the judicial process, especially in cases involving death penalties. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established procedures and ensuring that the right to a fair trial is not used as a tool to prolong proceedings. The court also considered the fact that all documents relied upon by the prosecution had already been provided to the accused, and that the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, were not yet in force.

Ratio: Fact:Law

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal interpretations and procedural aspects (70%), with a lesser focus on the specific factual details of the case (30%).

The Court considered the argument that the accused has a right to a fair trial, but also reiterated that this right is manifested in the fair disclosure requirement. While the concern of delay in the conclusion of the trial undoubtedly weighed heavily in the mind of the judge, it could not entail a compromise of the right of the accused to a fair investigation and trial.

The court also clarified that the proper interpretation of the disclosure requirement in Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh is that:

• It applies at the trial stage, after the charges are framed.
• The court is required to give one opportunity of disclosure, and the accused may choose to avail of the facility at that stage.
• If documents are sought, the trial court should exercise its discretion, having regard to the rule of relevance in the context of the accused’s right of defence. If the document or material is relevant and does not merely have a remote bearing to the defence, its production may be directed. This opportunity cannot be sought repeatedly.
• At the appellate stage, the rights of the accused are to be worked out within the parameters of Section 391 CrPC.

The court quoted from the judgment in V.K. Sasikala v. State:

“…What is of significance is if in a given situation the accused comes to the court contending that some papers forwarded to the court by the investigating agency have not been exhibited by the prosecution as the same favours the accused the court must concede a right to the accused to have an access to the said documents, if so claimed. This, according to us, is the core issue in the case which must be answered affirmatively.”

The court also noted:

“…the prosecution, in the interests of fairness, should as a matter of rule, in all criminal trials, comply with the above rule, and furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating officer. The presiding officers of courts in criminal trials shall ensure compliance with such rules.”

The court further stated:

“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 of the suo -moto proceedings.”

There was no dissenting opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The disclosure of documents not relied upon by the prosecution is primarily applicable at the trial stage, not at the appellate stage.
• The Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, are not yet in force and cannot be directly relied upon until they are formally adopted by the High Courts and State Governments.
• Accused persons are entitled to a list of all documents, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, at the commencement of the trial.
• Appellate courts have the power to take additional evidence under Section 391 of the CrPC, but this is a discretionary power.
• The right to a fair trial should not be used as a delaying tactic.
• The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for uniform practices in criminal trials across states.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the registry to circulate a copy of this order to all the High Courts, who in turn shall circulate the same to their respective subordinate courts.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the right to receive a list of all documents, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, is primarily applicable at the trial stage, not at the appellate stage. This case clarifies the scope of the disclosure requirement under Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and emphasizes that the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, are not yet in force. It also reiterates the importance of preventing delays in criminal proceedings, especially in death reference cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by P. Ponnusamy, clarifying that the disclosure of documents not relied upon by the prosecution is primarily applicable at the trial stage. The court emphasized the need to expedite criminal trials, especially those involving the death penalty, and reiterated that the right to a fair trial should not be used as a delaying tactic. The judgment provides clarity on the scope of disclosure requirements and the applicability of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021.