Court’s Power to Summon Withheld Evidence: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Sexual Assault Case

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in the case of Nitya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin & Anr. vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy alias Nithya Bhaktananda & Anr., along with a connected appeal filed by the State of Karnataka. The judgment clarifies whether an accused can invoke Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) at the stage of framing charges to summon material that was seized during the investigation but not included in the charge sheet.

Background of the Case

The case involved Gopal Sheelum Reddy alias Nithya Bhaktananda, who was charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for sexual assault. The accused moved the High Court seeking production of materials seized during the investigation but not included in the charge sheet. The High Court ruled in favor of the accused, allowing the application under Section 91 CrPC to summon these materials. This ruling was challenged in the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

• The appellants (State of Karnataka and complainants) contended that the High Court’s order was contrary to the law established in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568.
• They argued that the accused cannot invoke Section 91 CrPC at the stage of framing charges as it would amount to conducting a ‘mini-trial.’
• The framing of charges should be based only on the materials included in the charge sheet.

Respondents’ Arguments

• The defense argued that if the prosecution deliberately withholds crucial material that could exonerate the accused, the court has the power to summon such material.
• The court has an obligation to ensure fair trial and cannot rely solely on what the investigator includes in the charge sheet.
• Section 91 CrPC allows summoning of documents that are necessary for justice, even if the accused does not have a right to invoke it at this stage.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit, examined the legal position and ruled as follows:

On the Scope of Section 91 CrPC:

“It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91. However, the court being under the obligation to impart justice and to uphold the law, is not debarred from exercising its power, if the interest of justice in a given case so require, even if the accused may have no right to invoke Section 91.”

On the High Court’s Decision:

“The view of the High Court is contrary to law laid down in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi and subsequent cases. The defense could not be considered at the stage of framing of charge so as to avoid a mini-trial.”

On Courts’ Power to Call for Additional Evidence:

“While ordinarily the Court has to proceed on the basis of material produced with the charge sheet, if the court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the investigator/prosecutor, the court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same.”

Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to several landmark judgments to establish its reasoning:

State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568:

“The accused cannot at the stage of framing of charge invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. The court should proceed based on the charge sheet and not on the accused’s defense.”

Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92:

“The court is the sole repository of justice and has a duty to uphold the rule of law. The desire to avoid trial is so strong that accused sometimes manipulate investigations to get themselves absolved at an early stage.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and held that:

• The accused does not have a right to invoke Section 91 CrPC at the stage of framing charges.
• The trial court may summon additional material if it is satisfied that the investigator has withheld evidence of ‘sterling quality’ that could affect the framing of charges.
• The trial court must now proceed with framing charges based on the observations made by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court directed the parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings on 12th February 2018 and recorded appreciation for the assistance provided by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra as amicus curiae.

Key Takeaways

• Accused persons cannot invoke Section 91 CrPC at the stage of framing charges to call for evidence in their defense.
• However, courts have the discretion to summon material not included in the charge sheet if justice requires it.
• This ruling ensures that investigators cannot arbitrarily exclude evidence that might exonerate an accused.
• The judgment reaffirms the principle that charge framing should not turn into a ‘mini-trial.’

The ruling serves as an important precedent in criminal law, balancing the rights of the accused with the duty of the court to ensure justice.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Nitya Dharmananda al vs Sri Gopal Sheelum Re Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-12-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Judgment by Adarsh Kumar Goel
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category