Bombay HC: Whether a prosecution witness in Session trial can produce documents not part of the charge-sheet filed before the Court?

A perusal of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the entire scheme contemplated therein demonstrates that there is no provision available for a witness to directly seek production of additional documents during the course of sessions trial and at the time of recording of his/her evidence. The Sessions Court in the present case failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. While passing the impugned order, the Sessions Court also failed to appreciate that permitting such production of additional documents by the witnesses directly would prejudice the accused persons by depriving them of a fair opportunity to prepare their defence. The whole purpose of filing of charge-sheet, upon completion of investigation along with documents upon which the prosecution desires to place reliance, would be defeated if witnesses are permitted to directly produce additional documents in such a manner. {Para 21}

22. The additional documents could be produced by following the procedure of further investigation as contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and the Prosecutor taking a call as to whether such documents need to be produced in order to prove the charge against the accused.

23. In view of the above, it is found that the impugned order is unsustainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 688 of 2020

Decided On: 15.07.2021

Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1765/2021

Print Page

Madhya Pradesh HC: Whether Session court can permit witness to directly produce additional documents during sessions trial at time of recording evidence?

 It is also apparent from the aforesaid provision that it is for the prosecutor only to state by what evidence he/she proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. In such circumstances also, a witness cannot be allowed to bring any new document on record during his testimony. {Para 14}

15. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is only the prosecution, who can file an application to produce additional documents, which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation, but such a practice, where a witness produces the document and the prosecution supports such application, cannot be allowed as the same would compromise the sanctity of the trial as envisages under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In such circumstances, while relying upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of R.S.Pai (supra), in case of Sarla Shrivastava (supra)by this court, as also the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar (supra), the present application is hereby allowed as the application under Section 242 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the witness, which is not envisaged under law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)

Misc. Criminal Case No. 46527 of 2023

Sunil Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

 Decided On: 21.09.2024.

Citation: 2024:MPHC-IND:29173, MANU/MP/3679/2024.

Print Page