Accused Cannot Be Forced to Use RTI for Evidence When Cr.P.C. Provides Remedy: Karnataka High Court Quashes Rejection of Section 91 Application

Fair Trial Requires Prosecution to Provide Relevant Documents – Accused Has the Right to Access Evidence - In a crucial ruling affirming the right of an accused to access evidence during trial, the Karnataka High Court set aside an order of the Special Court (POCSO), Chitradurga, which had rejected an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) filed by the accused, Dr. Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru. The High Court held that an accused cannot be forced to seek case-related documents through the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI), when a statutory remedy under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is available.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing Criminal Petition No. 1639 of 2025, observed, "The rejection of the application is on the face of it illegal, as it is not the purpose of Section 91 Cr.P.C. to drive an accused to secure documents under the RTI Act when a direct remedy is available under the Code."

The case involved a challenge to an order dated January 29, 2025, by which the Special Court had denied the accused’s request to summon crucial police records, duty rosters, patrol logbooks, and digital entries from the Cotton Pet Police Station, Bengaluru, in connection with Crime No. 387/2022. The prosecution argued that the accused could obtain the required documents through RTI instead.

“Trial Court Erred in Denying Accused the Right to Seek Evidence Under Section 91 Cr.P.C.”

The High Court examined whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the Section 91 Cr.P.C. application on the ground that the documents could be obtained through RTI. Holding that the rejection order was contrary to law, the Court stated: “When an accused seeks documents necessary for his defense, the trial court cannot refuse production by directing him to invoke the RTI Act. The right to a fair trial includes the right to summon and rely on relevant evidence through statutory provisions.”

Section 91 of Cr.P.C. empowers the courts to summon documents necessary for trial, ensuring that the accused is not left without access to crucial evidence. The Court emphasized that an accused cannot be deprived of this right merely because another mechanism like RTI exists.

“Prosecution Cannot Withhold Documents – Must Disclose Material Evidence”

The prosecution opposed the petition, contending that the accused could have secured the documents through RTI. However, the Court dismissed this argument, stating: “The prosecution is obligated to place relevant documents before the court in the interest of justice. The accused cannot be expected to independently secure such evidence through bureaucratic channels.”

The High Court directed that the requested documents, which included police duty logs, station diaries, and patrol vehicle records, be placed on record at the appropriate stage of trial.

“High Court Quashes Special Court’s Rejection – Orders Prosecution to Produce Documents”

Allowing the petition, the Karnataka High Court quashed the trial court’s rejection order and directed the prosecution to produce the documents as required by the defense.

Justice Nagaprasanna concluded: “Fair trial principles demand that the accused be given access to relevant documents within the trial process itself. The prosecution shall place on record the documents sought by the petitioner at the appropriate stage in the trial.”

With this ruling, the Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed the fundamental right of an accused to a fair trial by ensuring access to critical evidence, setting a precedent for upholding procedural fairness in criminal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 13/02/2025