[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aman Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:66008
1 WP-45958-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 45958 of 2025
AMAN RATHORE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bramha Nand Pandey - counsel for the petitioner
Shri Y.D.Yadav - Government Advocate for respondent-State
ORDER
This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of
India challenging the legality, validity and properiety of impugned order
dated 12/11/2025 (Annexure-P-4) passed by 20th Additional Sessions Judge,
Jabalpur in S.T.No.505/2025 whereby the court has partly rejected the
application filed by the petitioners under Section 230 of BNSS.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication in the present matter are
that, on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, a criminal
case bearing Crime No. 681/2025 was registered at Police Station Adhartal,
District Jabalpur (M.P.), against Mohit @ Tinku Patel for the offences
punishable under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. During the course of investigation, the police authorities recorded the
statements of the prosecutrix and other relevant witnesses and collected the
documentary evidence. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:66008
2 WP-45958-2025
was filed before the learned JMFC, Jabalpur, alleging that a prima facie case
under Sections 64(1), 351(2) and 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is
made out against the present petitioner and one Mohit Kumar. Thereafter, the
learned Magistrate committed the case and forwarded it to the Court of 20th
Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur for trial, where the matter is presently
pending at the stage of hearing on framing of charges.
3. The petitioners have filed an application under Section 230 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before the trial Court, seeking a
direction to the police authorities to supply the identification form,
videography CD of prosecutrix and statement of witness No. 4, namely
Jitendra Kosta s/o late Balkishan Kosta. The said application was orally
opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
4. Learned trial Court, vide order dated 12/11/2025, partly allowed
the application and directed the police authorities to supply the identification
form of co-accused Mohit. However, the learned trial Court declined to
provide the videography CD of prosecutrix on the ground that her name is
mentioned therein and supply of said CD may lead to disclosure of the
identity of the prosecutrix. The learned trial Court further refused to supply
the statement of witness No. 4, namely Jitendra Kosta s/o late Balkishan
Kosta, on the ground that his name is not specifically mentioned in the
application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a fair and
impartial trial is a fundamental right of the accused, as enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:66008
3 WP-45958-2025
absence of supply of the aforesaid documents, the petitioners are unable to
effectively advance their arguments at the stage of framing of charges. In
support of his contention counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj & others Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.248-250/2015, wherein it is
held that the relevant documents must have supplied to the accused.. The
relevant portion (para 128, 178 179) are reproduced as under:-
128.The clothes from which DNA material was
obtained from the accused, were recovered pursuant to
disclosure statements (Ex. P28, Ex. P31, and Ex. P34)
made on 23.06.2011. Seizures of the relevant clothing
articles (Ex. P29, Ex. P32, and Ex. P35) were drawn in
the presence of PW-7 Sandeep Narulkar and Prakash
Ichke (who was not examined by the prosecution),
which as discussed at length earlier - throws some doubt
on the recoveries made on 23.06.2011. In addition to
their clothes, the prosecution submitted that DNA
material was also extracted from the knife seized from
Manoj on 22.06.2011 (Ex. P14), and the iron knife from
Rahul on 23.06.2011 (Ex. P29).
178. This view was endorsed in a recent three judge
decision of this court in Criminal trials guidelines
regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, in re v. State
of Andhra Pradesh80. This court has highlighted the
inadequacy mentioned above, which would impede a
fair trial, and inter alia, required the framing of rules by
all states and High Courts, in this regard, compelling
disclosure of a list containing mention of all materials
seized and taken in, during investigation- to the
accused. The relevant draft guideline, approved by this
court, for adoption by all states is as follows:
"4. SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SECTIONS
173, 207 AND 208 CR.PC Every Accused shall be
supplied with statements of witness recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC and a list of documents,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:66008
4 WP-45958-2025
material objects and exhibits seized during investigation
and relied upon by the Investigating Officer (I.O) in
accordance with Sections 207 and 208, Cr. PC.
Explanation: The list of statements, documents, material
objects and exhibits shall specify statements,
documents, material objects and exhibits that are not
relied upon by the Investigating Officer."
179. In view of the above discussion, this court holds
that the prosecution, in the interests of fairness, should
as a matter of rule, in all criminal trials, comply 80
(2021) 10 SCC 598 with the above rule, and furnish the
list of statements, documents, material objects and
exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating
officer. The presiding officers of courts in criminal
trials shall ensure compliance with such rules.
6. Learned counsel for State has submitted that in the case relied
upon by counsel for the petitioner appeal was preferred by three accused
persons and they were convicted under Section 302 of IPC (3 counts) but in
the present case facts are different. In the present case the allegation against
the petitioner is for committed forceful rape.
7. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the record.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Nipun Saxena and another
v. Union of India & others, (2019) 2 SCC 703, has categorically held that the
identity of the prosecutrix must not be disclosed in any manner. If the CD of
the statement of the prosecutrix is supplied to the petitioner, her identity
would be revealed, and she may consequently suffer social stigma and
prejudice.
9. The learned trial court rejected the request to supply a copy of the
statement of Jitendra Kosta on the ground that the petitioner had not
disclosed his name and had merely referred to him as witness No. 4. Such a
finding, to that extent, is neither just nor proper, inasmuch as in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:66008
5 WP-45958-2025
application filed under Section 230 of the BNSS, the petitioner has
specifically stated in paragraph 8 as well as in the prayer clause that witness
No. 4 is Jitendra Kosta.
10. Considering the material available on record, the petition is
partly allowed with a direction to the learned trial court to provide a copy of
the statement of witness No. 4, namely Jitendra Kosta, to the petitioners.
However, insofar as the relief sought for supply of the CD of the statement of
the prosecutrix is concerned, the learned trial court has not committed any
error in passing the impugned order.
11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed to the aforesaid extent.
(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE
S /-
