The Supreme Court has held that an accused can not only inspect documents seized during investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution, but can also have specific documents brought before witnesses during the trial if they are relevant to the defence, settling a contentious procedural issue that has surfaced in several high-profile criminal cases.
The Delhi Police challenged that ruling in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court subsequently reserved its order in the matter in early September after hearing arguments on whether an accused could inspect such material before charges were framed. On July 20, a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi stayed the high court order permitting Kalita to inspect the unrelied material kept in the malkhana (evidence room).
The Supreme Court itself has taken different cases at different stages to examine the issue. Because the question of what happens to material collected during investigation but consciously not relied upon by the prosecution has repeatedly troubled criminal courts, the judgment is significant.
The CBI had challenged orders directing it to produce several documents sought by accused Anil Dixit under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including documents seized during investigation but not relied upon in the chargesheet. The issue resurfaced in the landmark criminal-procedure jurisprudence concerning Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma (2010) and, subsequently, in Manoj Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), where the Supreme Court dealt with the prosecution’s obligation to disclose material collected during investigation that may have exculpatory value. The 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case involving Devangana Kalita has brought the controversy squarely back before the Supreme Court. On June 5 this year, the Delhi High Court held that while an accused has no absolute right to copies of unrelied material, she could seek inspection of such documents seized during the investigation.
The Supreme Court accepted this approach, but made it clear that inspection would not be the end of the matter. The court held that the accused was entitled to the relied-upon documents and, at best, a list of unrelied documents, but could seek inspection of the latter.
the CBI told the Supreme Court that the unrelied documents were voluminous and offered inspection instead While the accused had sought copies of a large volume of such material.
