Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

Bombay High Court Upholds Right to Fair Trial: Directs Production of Withheld Documents in Sexual Assault Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has underscored the importance of fair investigation and trial in criminal proceedings. Justice Bharati Dangre, presiding over the case, emphasized the accused’s entitlement to all relevant evidence, including documents withheld by the Investigating Officer. The court’s directive came in the case 2023:BHC-AS:37405 involving Dr. Sublendu Prakash Diwakar, accused in a sexual assault case.

Justice Dangre noted, “It is now imperative for the prosecution, as a matter of rule, in all criminal trials to comply with Rule 4 of the Draft Guidelines approved by the Apex court to be adopted by all States and furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits, which are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer.”

The petitioner, Dr. Diwakar, sought the quashing of an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had rejected his application for the production of documents crucial to his defense. These documents were originally submitted to the Investigating Officer but not included in the charge-sheet.

Highlighting the right to a fair trial, the judgment stated, “The right of the accused to be entitled to the aforesaid documents has been recognized as a part of his right to have a fair trial and fair investigation, and the Court trying the accused must ensure fairness of the investigating process.”

The High Court’s decision is a landmark in ensuring justice and fair play in the judicial system, particularly in criminal cases where the balance of evidence is crucial. By directing the Sessions Court to ensure the production of the withheld documents, the court has reinforced the principle that every accused person is entitled to a full and fair opportunity to present their defense.

Date of Decision-04.Dec.2023

Dr.Sublendu Prakash Diwakar VS State of Maharashtra

 

Similar News