Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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

 

Latest Legal News