The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused cannot be deprived of access to materials forming part of the chargesheet, emphasizing that such denial would violate principles of natural justice and hinder the right to a fair trial.

The matter was heard before the bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan.

The petitioner had approached the trial court, seeking an early hearing and requesting a copy of a hard disk relied upon by the prosecution. The hard disk, introduced as evidence by Prosecution Witness-7 (PW-7), was deemed crucial for an effective defense. The petitioner argued that while the trial court allowed the recall of PW-7 under Section 311 Cr.P.C., it failed to ensure that the accused received a copy of the hard disk.

Further, only selectively extracted documents were exhibited, without disclosing the metadata and source folder details, thereby impairing the defense.

Despite applying for certified copies, the petitioners were informed that digital records such as hard disks, CDs, and pen drives could not be provided under existing rules.

Opposing the plea, the prosecution contended that all relevant documents, including the hard disk, had already been supplied at the Section 207 Cr.P.C. stage. It also relied on previous court orders, asserting that the defense had acknowledged receipt of the documents.

After reviewing multiple trial court orders, the High Court noted that while the chargesheet documents had been provided, there was no clarity on whether a cloned copy of the hard disk was supplied.

The Court observed that even if a copy had been provided earlier, the accused still had the right to request a certified copy at their own expense. Denying such access, it held, would impede meaningful cross-examination and violate the principles of natural justice.

Additionally, the Court highlighted that trial delays were not attributable to the accused but resulted from repeated applications filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses. It stressed that while requests for certified copies should be assessed judiciously to avoid unnecessary delays, access cannot be denied when it is essential for a fair defense.

The Court underscored,

“When an accused seeks a certified copy of a document already forming part of the judicial record, it ought to be provided at their expense unless explicitly barred by law. Denial of such access could significantly prejudice the accused’s right to defend themselves effectively.”

The High Court directed the trial court to ensure that a copy of the hard disk is furnished to the accused at their expense before the next cross-examination. It also ordered that the examination of PW-7 be deferred until the accused had adequate time to review the hard disk contents. With these directions, the petition was disposed of.

Case Title: Gopal Mishra & Anr. vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Rudra Pratap, Tushar Randhawa, Rahul Sharma, Mohit Singh
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Aman Usman (APP for State)