G H P. GOPALKRISHNAN @ DILEEP versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 422 · Decided: 29-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
P. GOPALKRISHNAN @ DILEEP
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1794 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 29, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872:
ss.3 and 65B – Document – Whether the contents of a
memory card/pen drive being electronic record as predicated in
s.2(1)(t) of Information Technology Act would qualify as a
document within the meaning of s.3 of Evidence Act and s.29 of
IPC – Held:The basis for classifying an article as a ‘document’
depends upon information which is inscribed and not on where it
is inscribed – Definition of ‘evidence’ as envisaged u/s.3, clearly
takes within its fold documentary evidence to mean and include
all documentary evidence to mean and include all documents
including electronic records produced for the inspection of the
Court – The provisions in s.65B of Evidence Act, s.95(2)(b) of
Cr.P.C., s.29 of IPC, and definition of document in General Clauses
Act, reinforce that electronic records ought to be treated as
‘document’.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.207 – Furnishing of documents to the accused – Held:
Furnishing of documents to the accused is a facet of right to the
accused to a fair trial enshrined in Art.21 of the Constitution –
Section 207 does not empower the Magistrate to withhold any
‘document’ submitted by the Investigating Officer except when it
is voluminous – If the document/record is electronic, the ground
for non-furnishing the document it being voluminous can not be
invoked – Therefore, all documents including ‘electronic record’
produced for the inspection of the Court alongwith the police
report and which prosecution proposes to use against the accused,
must be furnished to the accused as per the mandate of s.207 –
The contents of the memory card/pen-drive must be furnished to
the accused in the form of cloned copy.
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 422
422
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
423
Constitution of India:
Art.21 – Right to fair trial of accused and right to privacy
of victim – In offence of rape – Competing rights – Balancing of
– Held: Though the accused is entitled to have copies of the
statements and documents accompanying the police report, which
the prosecution may use against the accused – Nevertheless, the
Court cannot be oblivious to the nature of offence and the
principles underlying the amendment to s.327(2) of Cr.P.C. and
228A of IPC, for securing the privacy and identity of the victim –
Balancing of rights of both the parties is imperative – In such
cases, the Court may be justified in providing only inspection of
the documents to the accused and his lawyer or expert for
presenting effective defence during the trial – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s.327(2) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.228A.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Ongoing statute  – Interpretation of  - Held: Code of Criminal
Procedure, being an ongoing statute, it is presumed that the
legislature intended the Courts to apply a construction that
continuously updates its wordings to allow for changes and
compatibility with the contemporary situation.
Words and Phrases:
“data” and “electronic record” – Meaning of, in the context
of Information Technology Act, 2000.
“document” - Meaning of in the context of Evidence Act,
1872.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1.1  The investigating officer after completing the
investigation u/s.173 Cr.P.C., is obliged to forward a copy of the
police report to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of
the offence on such police report.  Alongwith the police report,
the investigating officer is also duty bound to forward to the
Magistrate “all documents” or relevant extracts thereof, on
which prosecution proposes to rely other than those sent to the
Magistrate during investigation.  Similarly, the statements
recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the
prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, are required
to be forwarded to the Magistrate alongwith the police report.
P. GOPALKRISHNAN @ DILEEP v. STATE OF KERALA
AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
Indeed, it is open to the police officer, if in his opinion, any part
of the “statement” is not relevant to the subject matter of the
proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential
in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in public interest,
to indicate that part of the “statement” and append a note
requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies
to be gra

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.