Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 120B, 109, 341, 302 & 34 – Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020 – Right of accused to demand documents – Appellant along with other eight accused were convicted and sentenced by Sessions Court for the offences punishable u/s 120B, 109, 341, 302 read with 34 of IPC – Some of them were sentenced to death penalty and some with life imprisonment – The Sessions Court had referred its judgment to the High Court for confirmation of the death penalty – Adjournments were sought several times by the parties – During the course of hearing before the High Court, appellant address a letter to Inspector, asking him to produce certain documents, which were required for fair adjudication of their case in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – In the meanwhile, the appellant approached Supreme Court – Held: (Per Bela M. Trivedi, J.) The death Reference cases referred by the Sessions Courts to the High Court have to be given utmost priority and should be heard and completed by the High Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months – ‘Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2020’ were the draft guidelines were given by Supreme Court to all the High Courts and the State Governments and Union of India – However, neither the High Courts nor the State Governments appear to have taken any steps pursuant to the said directions – As a result thereof, the said Draft Rules have neither been adopted by the respective High Courts/State Governments nor have come into force – Unless they have been adopted, the same could not have been pressed into service by any party to a criminal proceeding – The attempt made on behalf of the appellant- accused and the other accused to delay the hearing, under the guise that they had demanded certain documents from the Investigating Officer was absolutely reprehensible – (Per S.Ravindra Bhat J. (for Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI and himself)) : The Draft Rules framed, therefore, were a product of a thorough consultative exercise undertaken to remedy asymmetries caused by the lack of uniformity in Rules across States, which could hamper appreciation of evidence, and in turn delay proceedings, especially at the appellate stage – Some High Courts or governments of the States/ Union Territories have failed to comply with Supreme 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 the list of the statements – To say that the judgment in Manoj in relation to this, and the right of the accused to receive the 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. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Per Bela M. Trivedi, J.: Despite such assurance having been given by the senior advocate and all other advocates including other senior advocates appearing for the other appellants-accused to the High Court to proceed with the hearing of the Reference case and the appeals, the appellant rushed to this Court to hamper the hearing fixed before the High Court on 17.10.2022. Such a dilatory tactics adopted by the parties and their advocates and thereby deflecting the course of justice in the cases like the present one, where some of the appellantaccused are facing the death penalty and some sentence of life imprisonment are strongly deprecated. It is needless to say that the death Reference cases referred by the Sessions Courts to the High Court have to be given utmost priority and should be heard and completed by the High Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months. However, as transpiring from the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order, which have remained unchallenged before us, it was only because of the non-cooperation on behalf of the counsels appearing for the appellant-accused, the High Court was not able to hear the Reference case. The court may not have to remind the senior advocates of their duties to assist the courts for the cause of justice, and not to indulge into dilatory tactics and hamper the cause of justice. [Para 6][274-A-E]
2. It clearly emerges that this Court in the suo moto proceedings had directed all the High Courts to take expeditious steps to incorporate the said Draft Rules as part of the Rules governing criminal trials and to ensure that the existing rules, notifications, orders and practice are suitably modified and promulgated, wherever necessary through the official gazette within six months from the date of the said order. The court had also directed the State Governments as well as the Union of India to carry out consequential amendments to the police and other manuals. However, neither the High Courts nor the State Governments appear to have taken any steps pursuant to the said directions. As a result thereof, the said Draft Rules have neither been adopted by the respective High Courts/State Governments nor have come into force. Unless and until the Draft Rules as suggested by the court in 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. The observations made in para 179 of the judgement in case of Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh were in the context of the said directions given by the court in the suo moto proceedings and therefore were required to be read in conjunction with the earlier paras 177 and
178 of the said judgement. Meaning thereby, the prosecution is expected to comply with the Draft Rule no. 4 pertaining to the supply of documents, as and when the said set of Draft Rules are adopted by the High Courts and State Governments, giving them a statutory force. May it be noted that in any case, 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. In the aforesaid premises, the attempt made on behalf of the appellant- accused and the other accused to delay the hearing of the appeals and the death Reference case pending before the High Court, under the guise that they had demanded certain documents from the Investigating Officer was absolutely reprehensible. [Paras 10-12][277-D-H; 278-A-E] Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Judgment dated 20.05.2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 248-250 of 2015; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 677; In re. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2021) 10 SCC 598 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.