V.K. SASIKALA versus STATE REP. BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Citation: [2012] 10 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 27-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012) 10 S.C.R. 641 
V.K. SASIKALA 
v. 
STATE REP. BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1497 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Criminal Jurisprudence - Criminal Trial - Right of the 
accused -
To demand certified copies! inspection of 
unmarked and un-exhibited documents not relied upon by the C 
prosecution but in custody of the court - Held: One of the 
established facets of a just, fair and transparent investigation 
is the right of an accused to ask for all such documents that 
he may be entitled to, under the scheme contemplated by 
CrPC - Absence of any claim on the part of the accused to D 
the said documents at any earlier point of time cannot have 
the effect of foreclosing such a right of the accused - If in a 
given situation the accused comes to the Court contending 
that some papers forwarded to the Court by the investigating 
agency have not been exhibited by the prosecution as the E 
same favours the accused, the court must concede a right to 
the accused to have an access to the said documents, if so 
claimed - In the case at hand, it was the specific contention 
of accused-appellant that in course of her examination uls. 
313 CrPC a perception had developed that she may be giving F 
incomplete/incorrect answers in response to the questions put 
to her by the Court and that she needed copies of the 
documents or at least an opportunity of inspection of the same 
to enable her to provide effective answers and to appropriately 
prepare her defence - Any failure on the part of the appellant G 
to put forward her version of the case in her examination ul 
s.313 CrPC may have the effect of curtailing her rights in the 
event she chooses to take up a specific defence and examine 
defence witnesses - Besides, answers given by the appellant 
641 
H 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
in her examination, if incorrect or incomplete, may have the 
effect of strengthening the prosecution case against her -
Appellant accordingly directed to be allowed inspection of the 
unmarked/ un-exhibited documents in custody of the court in 
the criminal trial pending against her - Code of Criminal 
s Procedure, 1973 - ss. 313, 207 and 173 - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Article 21. 
Criminal Trial - Investigation - Power and duty of the 
Investigating Officer (10) - Held: A duty is cast on the 10 to 
evaluate the two sets of documents and materials collected 
C i.e. those in favour of accused and those in support of the 
prosecution - However, it is not impossible to visualize a 
situation where the 10 ignores the part of the seized 
documents which favour the accused and forwards to the 
Court only those documents which support the prosecution. 
D 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.313 -
Examination of an accused undsr -Held: Has a fair nexus 
with the defence that the accused may choose to bring, if the 
need arises - Such examination not only provides the 
E accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating 
circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution 
evidence but also permits him to put forward his own version, 
if he so chooses, with regard to his involvement or otherwise 
in the crime alleged against him. 
F 
A criminal case was pending against the appellant 
and three other accused before the trial court under 
Section 1208 !PC and Section 13(2) read with Section 
13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While 
the examination of appellant under Section 313 CrPC was 
G midway, she filed an application seeking certified copies 
of certain unmarked and unexhibited documents in the 
custody of the court on being so forwarded alongwith 
the report of investigation under Section 173(5) CrPC. The 
application was dismissed by the trial court. The order 
H was upheld by the High Court. The appellant then filed 
V.K. SASIKALA v. STATE REP. BY 
643 
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE 
another application before the trial court, this time, 
A 
seeking an inspection of the said unmarked and 
unexhibited documents. This application too was 
rejected by the trial court, and again this order was 
upheld by the High Court. 
The orders passed by the High Court upholding the 
B 
rejection of two separate applications made by the 
appellant for certified copies I inspection of certain 
unmarked and unexhibited documents in the trial 
pending against her, were challenged in the instant C 
appeals. The appellant contended that the conduct of 
the pros

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