Recently, the Delhi High Court has expounded that ".............petitioner / accused cannot be precluded from leading evidence in defence with respect to messages exchanged between him and prosecutrix, which the accused considers would substantiate his defence and prove his innocence. Merely because the phone of the accused was not seized during an investigation or was not handed over by the petitioner to the IO..............."
The Delhi HC Bench, comprising of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, was hearing a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ).
Facts
The petitioner, an accused in FIR No. 299/2013 faced charges under Sections 376/328/363/366/342/368/34 IPC, 1860 and Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner had requested that their mobile phone be sent for a Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) examination to verify the authenticity of messages allegedly sent by the prosecutrix before the FIR was registered, which was imperative to prove petitioner’s innocence. This request was denied by the ASJ on February 23, 2024.
Issue:
The focal legal issue is whether the learned ASJ erred in denying the petitioner's request for a CFSL examination of their mobile phone to verify the genuineness of messages claimed to support their defense.
Contentions of Accused Petitioner
1. The petitioner argued that the messages exchanged with the prosecutrix before the FIR were crucial for their defense.
2. They claimed that a forensic examination was necessary to verify the authenticity of these messages, which would prove their innocence and counter the false allegations of, inter alia, rape against them.
Contentions of Prosecution and Victim
1. The prosecution opposed the petition, asserting that the mobile phone was not submitted during the investigation.
2. They argued that the application was filed belatedly, intending to delay the proceedings, and that the petitioner had not confronted the prosecutrix with these messages during the trial.
Observations of the Court
The court acknowledged that the petitioner’s right to present a defense should not be obstructed merely due to procedural lapses, such as not submitting the mobile phone during the initial investigation and observed that "Considering the background facts of the case and nature of allegations, the petitioner / accused cannot be precluded from leading evidence in defence with respect to messages exchanged between him and prosecutrix, which the accused considers would substantiate his defence and prove his innocence. Merely because the phone of accused was not seized during investigation or was not handed over by the petitioner to the IO would not foreclose his right to produce and lead the evidence in defence, if the same is relevant."
The court reached the above observation by relying on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473.
Decision of the Court
The petition was allowed, with the court directing that the petitioner be allowed to lead defense evidence if they choose to do so.
The trial court was directed to grant the petitioner an opportunity to present such evidence if desired. The order clarified that the CFSL examination of the mobile phone, as initially sought, was not mandated but emphasized the necessity of considering all relevant evidence in defense. The learned Trial Court was instructed to provide the petitioner a chance to present this evidence according to law and the earlier order denying the examination was deemed incorrect.
Title: Manoj Rana @ Tinku v. The State (CRL. REV. P. 452/2024)
Court: Delhi High Court
Date of Decision: 08.08.2024
Coram: Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
