Madras High Court
K.Thangapandiyan vs The State Represented By on 24 February, 2022
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
.BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.9194 of 2021
K.Thangapandiyan ... Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
C.B.C.I.D – South,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.8 of 2020) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire
records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District in
Crl.M.P.No.529 of 2021 in S.C.No.41 of 2021, dated 27.09.2021 and
set aside the same and consequently direct the aforesaid learned
Judge to furnish all the records and materials appended with the
charge sheet in Crime No.8 of 2020 pending on the file of the
respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
ORDER
This revision is directed as against the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.529 of 2021 in S.C.No.41 of 2021, dated 27.09.2021, by
the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District, thereby partly dismissed the petition filed
under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent.
3. The petitioner is the second accused in S.C.No.41 of 2021
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil. Having
been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 417 of I.P.C
r/w Sections 376, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D, 294(b) and 506(i)
of I.P.C and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000,
as against the first accused and for the offences under Section 201
of I.P.C r/w Section 417 of I.P.C r/w Sections 376, 354-A, 354-B,
354-C, 354-D, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C and Section 66E of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, as against the second accused,
namely, the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
4. While pending trial, the petitioner filed a petition under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C for a direction to issue copy of the entire
charge sheet. The trial Court partly allowed the petition and
dismissed the claim of the petitioner insofar as the copies of page
Nos.231 to 246 are the list of other victims with their mobile
number and address, who are not related to this crime; page
Nos.249 to 276 are the Forensic Science Lab Report which contains
obscene images of this victim and other victims; page Nos.335 to
358 are concerned with Crime No.503 of 2020 on the file of the
Kottar Police Station; page Nos.359 & 360 is athatchi concerned
with Crime No.18 of 2020 on the file of the All Women Police
Station, Nagercoil; page Nos.361 to 430 are the proceedings with
list of details of images and videos of the victim in this case and
other victims; page Nos.433 to 454 are the photos, contact details
of the victim in this victim, extraction report, security accounts and
page Nos.455 to 792 are the photos of the victims and other
victims.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the respondent did not provide proper paging on the papers
attached with the final report and admittedly, the petitioner was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
provided with all the copies which are going to rely upon by the
prosecution. It causes prejudice and affect the fair trial of the
petitioner. The petitioner is in prison from the date of arrest. In such
circumstances, the Court below directed the petitioner to have an
inspection over the records may not be a fruitful exercise for him. It
is also not practically possible and it could be difficult task for him to
read and get notes on the papers. The law provides the accused
entitlement to get a fair trial by providing all the documents which
are relied upon by the prosecution along with charge sheet. In
support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of this Court
passed in Crl.O.P.No.29860 of 2013 in the case of
K.Ramajeyam Vs. The State represented by, the Inspector of
Police, dated 25.11.2013. This Court relied upon the Judgment
reported in 2010 (2) SCC (Crl) 1385 in the case of Manu
Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), wherein the Honourable
Supreme Court of India held that one of the established facets of a
just, fair and transparent investigation is the right of an accused to
ask for all such documents that he may be entitled to under the
scheme contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
right of the accused to received the documents/statements
submitted before the Court is absolute and it must be adhered to by
the prosecution and the Court must ensure supply of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
documents/statements to the accused in accordance with law. The
liberty of an accused cannot be interfered with except under due
process of law. The expression 'due process of law' shall deem to
include fairness in trial. The concept of fair disclosure would take in
its ambit furnishing of a document which the prosecution relies upon
whether filed in Court or not. That document should essentially be
furnished to the accused and even in the cases where during
investigation a document is bona fide obtained by the investigating
agency and in the opinion of the prosecutor is relevant and would
help in arriving at the truth that the document should also be
disclosed to the accused. Further held that the duty to furnish
copies of the case documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C to the
accused itself is part of fair trial.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied
upon the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India
reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 216 in the case of Waheed-
UR-Rehman Parra Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that
the whole objective is that if from the testimony of the witness,
their location and identity can be deciphered, that portion of the
testimony should not be handed over. The Special Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
to take a call on what would be taken as relevant paras in their
statement which would disclose their occupation and identity, apart
from redaction of their names and addresses, while considering the
application under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
7. On a perusal of the order passed by the Court below, the
petition was partly allowed and ordered to furnish copies of page
Nos.1 to 230 and 247 to 248 of the charge sheet. The Court below
denied the documents pages starting from 231 to 246 pertaining to
the list of other victims with their mobile number and address, who
are not related to this crime; pages starting from 249 to 276
pertaining to the Forensic Science Lab Report which contains
obscene images of this victim and other victims; pages starting
from 277 to 334 pertaining to the certificate issued form Vodafone
Idea Limited with call detail register of the victim in this case; pages
starting from 335 to 352 pertaining to confession and re-confession
statement of the first accused in Crime No.503 of 2020; pages
starting from 353 to 358 and 359 to 360 are pertaining to some
other crime numbers; pages starting from 361 to 428 pertaining to
the proceedings with list of details of images and videos of the
victim in this case and other victims containing in the laptop hard
disc 90 GB of the first accused; pages starting from 429 to 430
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
pertaining to the copy of the vehicle particulars; pages starting from
433 to 454 and 455 to 792 are pertaining to the photos, contact
details of the victim, extraction report, security accounts and photos
of the victim and other victims.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
insofar as Forensic Science Laboratory report is concerned, the
respondent has no objection to furnish the copy of the same to the
petitioner. Insofar as page Nos.277 to 334 is concerned, the
petitioner is not entitled since it contains of call details of the victim.
In respect of page Nos.335 to 352, 353 to 358, 359 to 360 and 429
to 430 are concerned, they are not going to rely upon and as such,
the petitioner need not be served. Insofar as page Nos.361 to 428,
431 to 428, 431 to 432, 433 to 454 and 455 to 792 are concerned
it consists of the list of details of images and videos of the victim,
contact details of the victim, extraction report and security
accounts, photos of the victim and other victims. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for those documents.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied upon
the Judgment reported in 2020 (9) SCC 161 – P.Gopalkrishnan
alias Dileep Vs. State of Kerala and another, wherein the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
Honourable Supreme Court of India held that the contents of the
memory card/pendrive being electronic record must be regarded as
a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily,
the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her
to present an effective defence during the trial. However, in cases
involving issues such as of privacy of the complainant/witness or
his/her identity, the Court may be justified in providing only
inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for
presenting effective defence during the trial.
10. In the case on hand, the accused have committed very
serious and heinous offence against the victims. The documents
which are denied by the Court below are definitely would affect the
privacy of the victims and their future. The Judgment first cited by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful to the case on
hand. Further, in the second Judgment cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, in which, the Honourable Supreme Court of India
held that the portion of the testimony should not be handed over
with regard to their location and identity can be deciphered. The
Court below justified in not providing those documents to the
petitioner. Insofar as pages Nos.335 to 352, 353 to 358, 359 to 360
and 420 to 430 are concerned, the prosecution are not going to rely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
upon. Pages starting from 361 to 428, 431 to 432, 433 to 454 and
455 to 792 are the proceedings with list of details of images and
videos of the victim in this case and other victims containing in the
laptop hard disc 90 GB of the first accused, cover containing
pendrive, photos, contact details of the victim in this case,
extraction report, security accounts and photos of the victim and
other victims, in which the petitioner is not entitled to get copies of
those documents. However, the petitioner is entitled to have the
following documents:-
(i) Forensic Science Laboratory report alone
without containing obscene images of the victim of
the present case and other victims and
(ii) Certificate issued from Vodafone Idea
Limited with call detail register of the victim in this
case starting from page Nos.277 to 334.
11. Accordingly, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.529 of 2021 in
S.C.No.41 of 2021, dated 27.09.2021 by the learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
modified and this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. The trial
Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
24.02.2022
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes/No
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
To
1.The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
C.B.C.I.D – South,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.784 of 2021
24.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
