Judgement Summary:
The Madhya Pradesh held that the Applicant’s request for seeking the call record details and the CCTV footage is reasonable. It further directed the Respondents to secure the relevant records. Justice Subodh Abhyankar opined that an accused’s right to adduce evidence within the parameters of law could not be denied as unwarranted or unreasonable.
Date of Judgement:
1st July 2021
Coram:
Justice Subodh Abhyankar
Parties:
Applicant: Ajay Nogare
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Summary
Evidence plays an important part in any investigation, trial, inquiry, or other proceedings. It is one of the necessary materials to prove something. In the present case, the Trial Court denied the Applicant’s right of seeking materials necessary to be produced as evidence during the trial proceedings. It claimed it irrelevant and unreasonable. A petition was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of CrPC.
Facts of the Case
- The Applicant, Ajay Nogare, had made an application before the Trial Court, seeking the call details of his and the other co-accused, Monu’s mobile numbers under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- The call details were sought as an evidence to prove that the accused persons were not present at the place, where and when the incident took place, on 24. 03. 2021.
- Further, the CCTV footage of the Shankh Dwar Mahakaal Mandir and Harsiddhi Mandir dated 24.3.2019 between 6 to 7 p.m was also sought.
- The Trial Court, however, dismissed the application observing that there was no reason for seeking the call records and CCTV footage.
- The Applicant filed a Miscellaneous Criminal Case, before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issues Involved
- Whether the Trial Court was right in dismissing the Applicant’s request of seeking his call records and CCTV footage for evidence purpose?
Important Provisions
- Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 authorizes a Court or any police officer to issue an order or a summons for the production of a document or other thing if such production is necessary for any investigation, trial, inquiry, or proceeding.
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives the High Courts in India, inherent powers to make necessary orders for three purposes: 1) To give effect to any of the order under the CrPC, 2) To prevent abuse of the process of any Court, and 3) To secure the ends of justice.
Trial Court’s Order
The Trial Court dismissed the application stating that the Applicant’s request seeking his call records is not reasonable. Moreover, the applicant’s demand for CCTV footage is also unnecessary because the distance between Harsiddhi Mandir to Shankh Dwar Mahakaal Mandir is only about 200 meters, the Court observed.
Judgement Analysis
Courts Order
- The Applicant’s request demanding the call records and CCTV footage is valid, and therefore, the same has to be secured.
- An Accused cannot be denied his right of adducing evidence within parameters of Law. Such persons’ request to secure evidence which he might lead at appropriate stage of Trial is not unwarranted or unreasonable.
The main contention put forth by the Applicant, in this case, is his absence at the time of the incidence. Therefore, they might have felt that the records could serve as a proof of the same. Considering the same, the Court opined that the call records and CCTV footage might be a valid evidence to be produced before the Court for proving the statements of the accused. Accordingly, the Learned Judge directed the Respondents to secure the relevant records requested to be sought by the accused. With this, the Court disposed of the case.
Conclusion
In the present world, where digitalization is all that we are dwelling on, electronic evidences play a huge role in proving a case. From video clippings to WhatsApp chats, there is more records on such digital platforms. Courts, today, are encouraging the production of electronic evidences in an appropriate and required manner. At such a period, it is not correct to deny a person’s request of seeking such records for the sake of evidence. The Trial Court’s order, in this case, is erroneous. Thanks to the Madhya Pradesh High Court for restating the importance of a person’s right under the Indian Law. As rightly opined by Justice Abhyankar, a person’s, not just accused’s, right to produce evidence should not be deprived of by any authority. Since the argument on the Applicant’s behalf was that he was not present on the spot when the incident took place, the records that were sought might be useful for supporting the claim. Barring them from adducing these records may seriously infringe their right. Therefore, the High Court’s verdict, in this case, is a winsome.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
