Partly allowed

Leena Krishna Kakati and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC9 May 2022Crl.Pet./221/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the trial Court's orders refusing copies of prosecution documents. The Court held that under Sections 207 and 173 CrPC, the accused have a right to inspect all documents filed with the charge sheet, including voluminous records, ensuring a fair trial.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court was directed to ensure inspection of all relevant documents by the accused within three weeks.

Leena Krishna Kakati and 2 Ors. Vs the State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/20

¶2

GAHC010050942022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet./221/2022

¶5

LEENA KRISHNA KAKATI AND 2 ORS C/O T.N. KAKATI

¶6

AT HOUSE NO. 20, OPPOSITE RATNAGIRI PATH, BAGHARBORI -SATGAON ROAD, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-781037.

¶7

2: BARNALI DAS D/O SHRI JAGADISH DAS R/O VILL- PIJUPARA P.O. AND P.S. NAGARBERA

¶8

DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM- 781127.

¶9

3: MOON MAZOOMDER W/O SHRI PRANJAL CHAKRABORTY R/O A-202 AAKRUTI AMITY SRI ANANTHA NAGAR LAYOUT PHASE-2 HUSKER GATE HOSUR MAIN ROAD ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALORE KARNATAKA- 560100 PERMANENT R/O C/O MRS. MEERA MAZOOMDER MADHYA SRIPURIA NETAJJI ROAD TINSUKIA-786125

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE SPECIAL PP, ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/20

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M PRACHA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶15

Linked Case : Crl.Pet./780/2021

¶16

SURANJITA HAZARIKA AND 5 ORS W/O SAURAV KUMAR DEKA R/O HOUSE NO. 34 KALYANI NAGAR BEHING F.S.L. KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019

¶17

2: BARNALI DAS D/O JAGADISH DAS R/O VILL. PIJUPARA P.O. AND P.S NAGARBERA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM-781127

¶18

3: MOON MAZOOMDER W/O PRANJAL CHAKRABORTY PRESENTLY R/O A-202 AAKRUTI AMITY SRI ANANTHA NAGAAR LAYOUT PHASE 2 HUSKER GATE HOSUR MAIN ROAD ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560100 PERMANENT R/O C/O MRS MEERA MAZOOMDER MADHYA SRIPURIA NETAJI ROAD TINSUKIA-786125

¶19

4: SAIBU RAHMAN BARBHUIYA S/O TAYEEBUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA MANAGER QSS VENSAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. C/O LALSIAMLIANA HMMARVENG HOUSE NO. 4 P.O KAWNPUI DIST. KOLASIB MIZORAM-796070 PERMANENTLY R/O TML ROAD KADAMTALA RONGPUR PART 4 SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM-788009

¶20

5: SUNAYANA AIDEO

¶21

C/O PRANJAL PRATIM BORA HOUSE NO. 54 WARD NO. 7 P.S. NAGAON SADAR J.B. EXTENSION ROAD AMOLAPATTY NAGAON ASSAM-782003

¶22

6: LEENA KRISHNA KAKATI

¶23

C/O T.N. KAKATI HOUSE NO. 20 OPPOSITE RATNAGIRI PATH BAGHARBORI

¶24

Page No.# 3/20

¶25

SATGAON ROAD RANJABARI GUWAHATI-781037 VERSUS

¶26

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM

¶27

-----------Advocate for : MR M PRACHA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶28

BEFORE

¶29

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN ORDER

¶30

09.05.2022

¶31

Both the petitions are taken up together as the issue is identical in nature and relate to the same case.

¶32

All the above petitioners are accused(s) pertaining to the Dibrugarh PS Case No. 936/2016, which has ended at charge sheet on 24.01.2017 and subsequent thereto, State has filed 11 numbers of supplementary charge sheet and the last charge sheet was filed on 23.12.2021. The case has now reached the stage of consideration of charge. The petitioners, herein, moved certain applications under Section 207 CrPC, seeking copies of relevant documents, which have been filed by the prosecution along with the charge sheet. The learned Special Judge, Guwahati, Assam vide orders dated 15.11.2021 and 17.02.2022, passed in Special Case No. 02/2017, had disallowed the prayers. Raising the grievances against the aforesaid orders of rejection, the present petitions have been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 CrPC, with a prayer to set aside the aforesaid orders, with a direction to the State to supply

¶33

Page No.# 4/20

¶34

the petitioners, the documents sought by them, with further direction to the learned trial Court to permit them to inspect the Court record.

¶35

Heard Mr M Pracha, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners and Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. I have also gone through the impugned orders and the scanned copies of the LCR as well as the Case Diary.

¶36

On examination of the application filed by the accused petitioners, Leena Krishna Kakati, Barnali Das and Moon Mazoomder, it reveals that they have submitted that they have not received the following documents:-

¶37

a. the original scrutiny slip of the CCE 2014.

¶38

b. Statement of Kumud Das, Controller of Examination of ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, who produced documents on 12.09.2018 and 28.09.2019, respectively.

¶39

c. Copy of the document MR 213, because Applicant did not receive the document named MR 213

¶40

d. The copy of the original mark sheet with the official seal and signature of the department/official as the document was shown in MR No. 347/19.

¶41

e. Details of the missing 47 answer scripts as mentioned in the PARA No. 17.14 of the charge sheet.

¶42

The Court dealt with the petition and answered the same by the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 (Internal page-107) as follows:-

¶43

i) Prosecution is directed to furnish the original scrutiny slip of CCE 2014 to the accused, Moon Mazoomder, Leena Krishna Kakati and Barnali Das, if the prosecution relies on those documents.

¶44

ii) The learned counsel appearing for prosecution has submitted that

¶45

Page No.# 5/20

¶46

prosecution has already furnished copy of statement of witness, Kumud Das.

¶47

iii) So far as the document vide MR 213 is concerned, the petitions are vague as the applicants have not mentioned the year.

¶48

iv) Accused petitioners are given liberty to inspect the marksheets seized MR 347/19

¶49

v) The learned counsel appearing for prosecution submitted that the IO could not recover 47 numbers of answer scripts of CCE 2014, as mentioned in the charge sheet, and as the answer script has been missing, so the question of furnishing missing answer script does not arise.

¶50

In the last para of the order, the learned Court has held that only the name of Leena Krishna Kakati appeared in the Supplementary Charge Sheet No. 11, but the names of Moon Mazoomdar and Barnali Das did not appear, so Leena Krishna Kakati was given the liberty to inspect the documents relied by the prosecution in the Supplementary Charge sheet No. 11, within 2 (two) days from the date of order.

¶51

Thus, it appears that the learned trial Court has dealt with each and every prayer of the petitioners, which is evident from the order itself. The question of furnishing of 47 numbers of answer script, which itself is not yet recovered during investigation, cannot be furnished as sought for.

¶52

On the other hand, the copy of statement of witness, Kumud Das, is already stated to have been furnished. Only the document pertaining to MR No. 213 was not furnished as the year was not mentioned. As it appears from the charge sheet itself, the said MR has been mentioned as MR 213/2017, there will be no difficulty to furnish the copy of said document, as mentioned in the

¶53

Page No.# 6/20

¶54

charge sheet. The petitioners have also been given the liberty to inspect the mark sheet seized vide MR No. 347/2017 within 2 (two) days. But the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they could not inspect the documents due to the COVID-19 situation and they should be given the opportunity to make proper inspection of documents by giving adequate time.

¶55

The other set of petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 780/2021, Suranjita Hazarika, Saibur Rahman Barbhuiyan, Sunaina Aideo and other three petitioners are common in both the cases, namely, Barnali Das, Moon Mazumdar and Leena Krishna Kakati. They have moved the applications under Section 207 CrPC, before the Court. Ms. Suranjita Hazarika, in her petition has sought for supply of documents and inspection of records as relied by prosecution in the charge sheet, which were stated to have not been supplied to them. In the petition, it has been stated that after going through the entire voluminous record of the case, which was supplied to the accused(s), it was found that there are still some documents, that are yet to be furnished to the accused(s), before consideration of charge. It is, therefore, prayed that considering the voluminous record of the case, the Court may be graciously pleased to allow further inspection of documents, in order to allow the petitioners to submit a specific list of documents related to the petitioners, which are still not supplied and nonfurnishing of aforesaid documents would be highly prejudicial to the petitioners to defend their case.

¶56

In other petitions, filed by Moon Mazoomder and Saibur Rahman Barbhuiyan, they have submitted that they have not received the following documents:-

¶57

I. Statement under Section 161 CrPC by applicants Md. Saibur Rahman Barbhuiya and Moon Mazoomdar (if any) as the same was never

¶58

Page No.# 7/20

¶59

supplied. The applicants never made any such statement but came to know of the statement under Section 161 CrPC as it finds mention in WP(C) No. 4198/2019, before the Hon’ble the Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) whereby an affidavit on behalf of the prosecution under oath by Shri Majnur Hussain (IAS), Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Secretariat Administration Department. The fact that a statement is with the prosecution (though never made by the applicants) also finds mention in the Judgment dated 18.03.2020, passed in WP(C) No. 4198/2019 by the Hon’ble the Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh).

¶60

II. Original seizure list: Number of answer scripts seized from the strong room of APSC for CCE 2013 and CCE 2014 (O).

¶61

III. Copy of Procedure & Conduct of Business Rules, 2010 of APSC: MR No. 250/19, not available in the market or online. Required for understanding the functioning of APSC exam procedure (M).

¶62

IV. Log of communication with Directorate of Forensic Science, Kalilipara: Number of copies sent for forensic analysis, number of responses received etc. (Few M, mostly O0

¶63

V. Log of communication between APSC with Directorate of Printing & Stationary Assam, Bamunimaidan: Number of answer scripts/additional sheets requested for CCE 2013, 2014 as well as responses received regarding the same matter (Few M, mostly O).

¶64

VI. Log of communication between APSC with Directorate of Printing & Stationary Assam, Bamunimaidan: Number of answer

¶65

Page No.# 8/20

¶66

scripts/additional sheets requested for CCE 2013, 2014 as well as responses received regarding the same matter (Few M, mostly O) VII. Log of prayers: submitted by the IO to the Special Judge, Assam, in relations to Dibrugarh PS Case No. 936/2016 (O).

¶67

Apart from the aforementioned documents the below mentioned documents find mention at the index of the Charge sheet, but are not enclosed with the charge sheet supplied. Those are as follows:-

¶68

B-6, D-1 to D-47, D-56 to D-63 and D-90 to D-103 .

¶69

The learned trial Court has dealt with the petition and after hearing both sides, on 15.11.2021, has held that prayer made by the petitioners in I to VII are not applicable and so far as regards the prayer made in Point III has already been furnished. So far as regards the copy of seized CD, sought by the accused Barnali Devi, it was submitted by prosecution that prosecution has already given the transcription of the content of the CD, so the question of furnishing the CD does not arise.

¶70

The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr M Pracha, has strenuously argued before the Court that for fair adjudication of the matter, the Court must ensure the supply of all the relevant documents before the trial begins, but in the present case, all the relevant documents mentioned above have not been supplied. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V K Sashikala –Vs- State represented by Superintendent of Police; AIR 2013 SC 613, which follows the ratio of Siddharth Vashisht @ Manu Sarma –Vs- State (NCT of Delhi); (2010) 6 SCC 1, as well as decision rendered in Ashutosh Verma –Vs- CBI; (2014) Legal Eagle (Delhi) 3909, has been referred, wherein, the Court has mandated that the Court shall not deprive the accused persons to get all relevant documents in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. It has been urged that Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶71

Page No.# 9/20

¶72

in V K Sashikala (supra) has underlined the importance of furnishing of all the relevant copies of documents, filed along with the charge sheet, even at the stage of recording of statements under Section 313 CrPC.

¶73

The decision rendered in Siddharth Vashisht(supra) has a bearing on the issues as to, what sort of document can be furnished to the accused and the right of the accused to claim the documents that have been filed along with the charge sheet. The role of Public Prosecutor and his duties of disclosure has been elaborately dealt with that, though the primary duty of the Public Prosecutor is to ensure that the accused is punished, his duty extend to ensuring fairness in the proceeding and also to ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court for just determination of the truth, so that true justice prevails. Further, it has been held that it is the responsibility of the investigating agency as well as that of Courts, to ensure that every investigation is fair and does not erode the freedom of an individual, except in accordance with law. The relevant observation is extracted below:-

¶74

“ 216. Under Section 170, the documents during investigation are required to be forwarded to the Magistrate, while in terms of Section 173(5) all documents or relevant extracts and the statement recorded under Section 161 have to be forwarded to the Magistrate. The investigating officer is entitled to collect all the material, which in his wisdom is required for proving the guilt of the offender. He can record statement in terms of Section 161 and his power to investigate the matter is a very wide one, which is regulated by the provisions of the Code. The statement recorded under Section 161 is not evidence per se under Section 162 of the Code. The right of

¶75

Page No.# 10/20

¶76

the accused to receive the documents/statements submitted before the court is absolute and it must be adhered to by the prosecution and the court must ensure supply of documents/statements to the accused in accordance with law. Under the proviso to Section 162(1) the accused has a statutory right of confronting the witnesses with the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code thus indivisible.

¶77

217. Further, Section 91 empowers the court to summon production of any document or thing which the court considers necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or another proceeding under the provisions of the Code. Where Section 91 read with Section 243 says that if the accused is called upon to enter his defence and produce his evidence there he has also been given the right to apply to the court for issuance of process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination, crossexamination or the production of any document or other thing for which the court has to pass a reasoned order.

¶78

218. The liberty of an accused cannot be interfered with except under due process of law. The expression “due process of law” shall deem to include fairness in trial. The court (sic Code) gives a right to the accused to receive all documents and statements as well as to move an application for production of any record or witness in support of his case. This

¶79

Page No.# 11/20

¶80

constitutional mandate and statutory rights given to the accused place an implied obligation upon the prosecution (prosecution and the Prosecutor) to make fair disclosure. The concept of fair disclosure would take in its ambit furnishing of a document which the prosecution relies upon whether filed in court or not. That document should essentially be furnished to the accused and even in the cases where during investigation a document is bona fide obtained by the investigating agency and in the opinion of the Prosecutor is relevant and would help in arriving at the truth, that document should also be disclosed to the accused.

¶81

219. The role and obligation of the Prosecutor particularly in relation to disclosure cannot be equated under our law to that prevalent under the English system as aforereferred to. But at the same time, the demand for a fair trial cannot be ignored. It may be of different consequences where a document which has been obtained suspiciously, fraudulently or by causing undue advantage to the accused during investigation such document could be denied in the discretion of the Prosecutor to the accused whether the prosecution relies or not upon such documents, however in other cases the obligation to disclose would be more certain. As already noticed the provisions of Section 207 have a material bearing on this subject and make an interesting reading. This provision not only require or mandate that the court without delay and free of cost should furnish to the accused copies of the police

¶82

Page No.# 12/20

¶83

report, first information report, statements, confessional statements of the persons recorded under Section 161 whom the prosecution wishes to examine as witnesses, of course, excluding any part of a statement or document as contemplated under Section 173(6) of the Code, any other document or relevant extract thereof which has been submitted to the Magistrate by the police under sub-section (5) of Section 173. In contradistinction to the provisions of Section 173, where the legislature has used the expression “documents on which the prosecution relies” are not used under Section 207 of the Code. Therefore, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code will have to be given liberal and relevant meaning so as to achieve its object. Not only this, the documents submitted to the Magistrate along with the report under Section 173(5) would deem to include the documents which have to be sent to the Magistrate during the course of investigation as per the requirement of Section 170(2) of the Code.

¶84

220. The right of the accused with regard to disclosure of documents is a limited right but is codified and is the very foundation of a fair investigation and trial. On such matters, the accused cannot claim an indefeasible legal right to claim every document of the police file or even the portions which are permitted to be excluded from the documents annexed to the report under Section 173(2) as per orders of the court. But certain rights of the accused flow both from the codified law

¶85

Page No.# 13/20

¶86

as well as from equitable concepts of the constitutional jurisdiction, as substantial variation to such procedure would frustrate the very basis of a fair trial. To claim documents within the purview of scope of Sections 207, 243 read with the provisions of Section 173 in its entirety and power of the court under Section 91 of the Code to summon documents signifies and provides precepts which will govern the right of the accused to claim copies of the statement and documents which the prosecution has collected during investigation and upon which they rely.

¶87

221. It will be difficult for the Court to say that the accused has no right to claim copies of the documents or request the Court for production of a document which is part of the general diary subject to satisfying the basic ingredients of law stated therein. A document which has been obtained bona fide and has bearing on the case of the prosecution and in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, the same should be disclosed to the accused in the interest of justice and fair investigation and trial should be furnished to the accused. Then that document should be disclosed to the accused giving him chance of fair defence, particularly when non-production or disclosure of such a document would affect administration of criminal justice and the defence of the accused prejudicially.” (emphasis supplied) (Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1) ”

¶88

Page No.# 14/20

¶89

Let us also discuss about the provision under Section 173 CrPC as well as Section 207 CrPC, which mandated the provision as to what sort of document is to be furnished by the IO, along with the charge sheet and what sort of document is to be furnished to the accused under Section 207 CrPC.

¶90

Section 173 CrPC- Report of Police Officer on completion of investigation-

¶91

(1) xxx xxx xxx

¶92

(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating

¶93

(a) the names of the parties;

¶94

(b) the nature of the information;

¶95

¶96

(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;

¶97

(e) whether the accused has been arrested;

¶98

(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;

¶99

(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.

¶100

1[(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C 2[376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of1860)].]

¶101

(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom

¶102

Page No.# 15/20

¶103

the information relating to the commission of the offence was

first given.

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) xxx xxx xxx

(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the

¶108

Magistrate along with the report—

¶109

(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those

¶110

already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;

¶111

(b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.

¶112

(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the

¶113

public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

¶114

(7) xxx

¶115

(8) xxx

¶116

Section 207 CrPC prescribes the provision of furnishing of copy to the accused, as

¶117

Page No.# 16/20

¶118

follows:-

¶119

207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. —In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused,

¶120

free of cost, a copy of each of the following:—

¶121

(i) the police report;

¶122

(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;

¶123

(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of section 173;

¶124

(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;

¶125

(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of section 173:

¶126

Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused.

¶127

Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it

¶128

Page No.# 17/20

¶129

either personally or through pleader in Court.

¶130

On perusal of the provisions under Section 173 CrPC, it is manifestly clear that the Investigating Officer has to forward all the documents along with the charge sheet, they propose to rely apart from the documents already sent to the Court during investigation. On the other hand, the Section 207 CrPC provides that it is the obligation on the part of the Magistrate to see that all the documents, which are necessary for the accused to conduct their defence are furnished to him before trial. A conjoint reading of Section 173 (5) (6), along with Section 207 CrPC has mandated that it is the bounden duty of a Police Officer to forward all the statements, documents to the Court and duty of the Magistrate to furnish copies of all statements and documents to the accused. By virtue of Section 173 (6) CrPC, Police may make a prayer to the Court that disclosure of any part of statement and document would not be expedient in the public interest. He may suppose to append a note in the forwarding memorandum to the Magistrate, with reasons and it is the discretion of the Magistrate, whether to allow such prayer or not.

¶131

The purpose of the relevant provisions incorporated under Section 173 (5) (6) and Section 207 CrPC, assume an importance. In case, on perusal of certain documents or extract thereof, or statement under Section 161 (3) CrPC, filed along with charge sheet, the Court finds that there are serious discrepancies between those statements and depositions of witnesses during trial, it may cause serious prejudice to the accused. It is held in State of Kerala –VsRaghavan; 1974 Crl. L.J 1373, that the prosecution cannot pick and choose and refuse to supply to the accused, the copies of statements, which are contradictory to the prosecution case, on the ground that the prosecution is not

¶132

Page No.# 18/20

¶133

going to rely on the statements of those witnesses, otherwise it would be a deviation from mandatory provisions of criminal law.

¶134

Now, adverting to the present case, on perusal of charge sheet filed before the learned Court, it would reveal that no specific request has been made by the Police Officer, while forwarding charge sheet for withholding any statement or any particular documents or portion thereof. That being so, the various documents that have been furnished along with the charge sheet, whether the prosecution relied or not, can be furnished to the accused persons. The scope and ambit of Section 207 CrPC is wide enough, which has enabled the Court to provide all the documents, submitted along with the charge sheet, subject to deviation with reasons to be recorded. Now, so far as regards the prayer made by the accused persons, namely, Leena Krishna Kakoti, Barnali Das and Moon Mazoomder, the learned trial Court has almost allowed all the prayers made by them and has only mentioned that as the year of the MR No. 213 is not mentioned, the same cannot be provided. As has been discussed above, the learned trial Court can provide the said document, which is found to be MR No. 213/2017. Although the Court has allowed the inspection of documents only to one of the accused, contending that other two accused, were not named in the Charge Sheet No. 11, but it is to be noted that each and every Charge Sheet has been filed under Section 120 (B) IPC, along with other sections of law, suggesting conspiracy by all accused persons in committing the offence. That being so, all accused persons are entitled for inspection of the bunch of documents filed by the prosecution, which were not furnished to them. The question of providing documents (47 nos. of answer scripts), which were not recovered, would not arise.

¶135

The learned Court has already held that the prayer made in the I to VII is

¶136

Page No.# 19/20

¶137

not applicable, but the learned trial Court has not specifically mentioned, as to whether those documents were furnished along with the charge sheet or not. The Court may examine the aforesaid matter afresh and give the opportunity to examine those documents, if furnished, along with the charge sheet and otherwise. Moreover, if transcription of above documents have already been furnished, the same may not be furnished again to the accused persons. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer made by the accused persons to provide the statement of the accused(s), if any, under Section 161 CrPC, as the prosecution is only to submit the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, to whom, they intend to rely. Certain other documents regarding the order of the Court, can be obtained by accused persons by applying certified copy. The learned trial Court may also consider to provide the e-copy of documents of those relevant documents, if not furnished, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶138

In the instant case, where along with the charge sheet, 11 supplementary charge sheets have been filed and the investigation continued since 2016 till 2022, a voluminous documents have been seized and the accused persons should have access to those documents, that have been laid before the Court to defend their case.

¶139

In view of the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and the proposition of law as discussed above and to balance the need of prosecution as well as the defence side, the present petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

¶140

1. The learned trial Court will ensure the inspection of those documents, including unmarked and unexhibited documents, by the accused persons, that may have been filed along with the

¶141

Page No.# 20/20

¶142

charge sheet, so as to ensure fair justice.

¶143

1. Such an inspection will be carried out reasonably within 3 (three) weeks, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶144

1. The learned trial Court will decide the venue of such inspection and also the responsible persons, who can be permitted to be present at the time of such inspection.

¶145

1. The trial of the proceeding will continue simultaneously to such inspection and the learned trial Court will take care of the situation that no delay should incur in trial, because of such inspection.

¶146

1. In the event of application made by the accused petitioners for certified copies of documents from the record, it should be furnished by the Court without delay.

¶147

In terms of above, the petitions are partly allowed.

¶148

JUDGE

¶149

Comparing Assistant

Leena Krishna Kakati and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leena Krishna Kakati and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Mohan Sarkar @ Hari Prasad Sakar Vs the State of Assam

Md. Majial Sheikh Vs the State of Assam

Ujjal Borah Vs the State of Assam

Ekbul Hussein Vs the State of Assam

Kabel Uddin and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Hamida Khatun, Vs the State of Assam