Introduction: In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court emphasized the importance of transparency in criminal trials by mandating that the accused be given access to all investigative documents, even those not relied upon by the prosecution. This judgment, delivered in Varghese Kuruvila v. State of Kerala (Crl.MC 6592 of 2024), reaffirms the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Case Background: The petitioner, Varghese Kuruvila, challenged a lower court's refusal to supply documents not relied upon by the prosecution during the investigation of a 2014 case. The trial court dismissed the request, citing the 2022 amendment to Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which mandates supplying such documents, as inapplicable due to the retrospective application of the rule.
High Court's Reasoning: Justice C. Jayachandran of the Kerala High Court rejected the trial court's reasoning. The court clarified that the rule's application should not be viewed through the lens of retroactivity but rather through its intended purpose—to ensure the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial. The court noted that withholding evidence not relied upon by the prosecution might hinder the discovery of truth, which is the ultimate goal of a trial.
Accused's Right to Information: The court emphasized that denying the accused access to all gathered materials contradicts their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The prosecution’s decision not to rely on certain documents could indicate their potential value to the defense. Therefore, transparency and access to these materials are crucial for ensuring a fair and just trial process.
Impact of the Ponnusamy Case: The High Court's decision drew from the 2022 Supreme Court judgment in Ponnusamy P. v. State of Tamil Nadu, which underscored the accused’s right to access evidence during the trial stage, post-framing of charges. The ruling clarified that trial courts could facilitate access to such documents, ensuring the accused’s defense is not compromised.
Rule 19(4) and its Amendment: The amendment to Rule 19(4) was introduced following the Supreme Court's directive to unify criminal procedures across High Courts. This provision ensures that the accused is provided with materials not relied upon by the prosecution, thereby promoting a fairer trial process.
Legal Precedent and Fair Trial Rights: The High Court's ruling aligns with established legal principles, particularly Section 391 of the CrPC, which allows appellate courts to receive additional evidence if necessary. The Kerala High Court reiterated that the accused’s right to a fair trial includes access to all investigative materials, whether or not the prosecution intends to rely on them.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court's judgment in this case is a step toward enhancing transparency and upholding the constitutional rights of the accused. By ensuring access to all investigative documents, the court reaffirmed the principle that the ultimate purpose of a criminal trial is to unearth the truth, thereby ensuring justice for all parties involved
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.