E-Paper
Accused can use unrelied prosecution documents in trial: Supreme Court
The court clarified that the stage at which particular documents can be sought would depend on the nature and relevance of the material.
Prefer HTon Google
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.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said that an accused is entitled to documents available with the prosecuting agency to shape his defence, while clarifying that the stage at which particular documents can be sought would depend on the nature and relevance of the material.
The ruling came in a case arising from an alleged conspiracy between 2010 and 2014 to award consultancy work for the permanent campus of the Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi, on the basis of allegedly fake documents, causing a loss of nearly ₹1.92 crore.
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 charge sheet. While the accused sought copies of a large volume of such material, CBI told the Supreme Court that the documents were voluminous and offered inspection instead.
The Supreme Court accepted this approach, but made it clear that inspection would not be the end of the matter.
“The accused could examine such documents and seek for production of the specific document required at the appropriate time, when the appropriate witness is being examined either by the prosecution or the defence,” it held.
The court directed CBI to keep the files ready when the trial takes place. Alternatively, the agency could allow the accused or an authorised representative to identify the particular documents required during inspection. Those documents would have to be recorded in writing, signed by both sides and produced before the trial court without delay.
The ruling creates a practical bridge between the accused’s right to inspect material not relied upon and its eventual use in the trial. A document need not have been relied upon by the prosecution at the charge sheet stage to become relevant to the defence later. Once identified during inspection, the accused can seek its production when the relevant prosecution witness enters the witness box, or use it while leading defence evidence.
The bench also dealt with documents that CBI claimed were not in its possession. In one instance, the accused claimed that minutes of various building committee meetings, which had not been relied upon by the prosecution, would help establish his innocence.
The court said that if such documents were available in the records open to inspection, the accused could seek their production in accordance with the procedure laid down by it. If they were not available with CBI, the accused could procure and prove them in defence, including through the Right to Information Act or by examining an appropriate witness. Their evidentiary value, the court made clear, would ultimately have to be assessed by the trial court.
The court, however, drew a line around material that could not be disclosed. It accepted CBI’s position in respect of source information and certain registers, after the accused himself clarified that he was not seeking the source of information or case diaries.
The judgment is significant 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 Supreme Court itself has taken different cases at different stages to examine the issue.
In VK Sasikala Vs State, the top court in 2012 held that where documents forwarded by the investigating agency to the court were not exhibited because the prosecution did not rely upon them, an accused could seek access to them where they could assist the defence. .
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.
In P Ponnusamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu (2022), however, the Supreme Court examined the stage at which such disclosure obligations arise. The issue acquired another dimension last year in Sarla Gupta Vs Directorate of Enforcement (2025). The Supreme Court held in the PMLA context that an accused was entitled to a list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits collected by the Enforcement Directorate but not relied upon in the prosecution complaint.
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.
