Case Title:
Mala Ram Versus State Of Rajasthan
Date of Order:
4th September 2024
Bench:
Justice Arun Monga
Parties:
Petitioner: Mala Ram
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Subject:
The petitioner, Mala Ram, is on trial for a grave accusation under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to murder claims. In the course of the trial, the petitioner submitted a request according to Section 94 of the BNSS, aiming to get the call information of four witnesses: Sendha Ram, Ishra Ram, Ramesh, and Ratan Lal.
Important Provision
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA
Section 94: (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document, electronic communication, including communication devices, which is likely to contain digital evidence or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita
by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons or such officer may, by a written order, either in physical form or in electronic form, require the person in whose
(1) possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.
(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document, or other
thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or
thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—
(a) to affect sections 129 and 130 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or
the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891; or
(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, or other document or any parcel or thing in the
custody of the postal authority.
Section 95: Procedure as to letters.
(1) If any document, parcel or thing in the custody of a postal authority is, in the
opinion of the District Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court of Session or High Court
wanted for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this
Sanhita, such Magistrate or Court may require the postal authority to deliver the document,
parcel or thing to such person as the Magistrate or Court directs.
(2) If any such document, parcel or thing is, in the opinion of any other Magistrate,
whether Executive or Judicial, or of any Commissioner of Police or District Superintendent
of Police, wanted for any such purpose, he may require the postal authority to cause search
to be made for and to detain such document, parcel or thing pending the order of a District
Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Court under sub-section (1).
Facts
The petitioner, Mala Ram, is on trial for a grave accusation under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to murder claims. In the course of the trial, the petitioner submitted a request according to Section 94 of the BNSS, aiming to get the call information of four witnesses: Sendha Ram, Ishra Ram, Ramesh, and Ratan Lal.
The petitioner contended that the phone records and location information were essential for conducting a thorough cross-examination of the witnesses, as they could either corroborate or refute the witnesses' claims of their presence at specific locations.
The petitioner's appeal was denied by the trial court on July 26, 2024, in accordance with Section 94 of the BNSS. This clause prohibits the accused from using phone data to verify witness evidence.
The trial court found that the clause was meant to be employed by the court or the officer in charge of the police station, not by the accused themselves.
The petitioner then filed a plea with the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, disputing the trial court's ruling and seeking relief on the grounds that the phone records were required for a fair trial. The petitioner said that if the call data were not maintained and presented as evidence, his case would be significantly weakened.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner's counsel asserts that the trial court erred in denying the application according to Section 94 of the BNSS. He said that the witnesses' phone records were essential for corroborating the veracity of their testimony and substantiating the facts of the case.
PW/1 Sendha Ram, PW/4 Ishra Ram, PW/6 Ramesh, and PW/7 Beejla are witnesses who, as asserted by the petitioner, provided testimony corroborating their attendance at different places throughout the relevant timeframes.
The petitioner submitted the call parameters to substantiate these assertions. He asserted that the trial court's failure to address this request compromised his defense, resulting in an unjust trial.
The petitioner claimed that SHO Surajbhan Singh, the investigating officer who had completed numerous memos, was allegedly absent during the compilation of significant documents.
The petitioner sought contact details to verify the acts of the investigating officer. The petitioner's counsel said that the prosecution's case would be more challenging to contest in its entirety owing to the lack of essential evidence, so infringing upon the petitioner's basic right to a fair trial as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner emphasized the critical need to obtain the call records and location data promptly, given that telecommunications companies may ultimately remove this information from their systems.
The attorney emphasized the significance of safeguarding this technological evidence to maintain procedural fairness and uphold the integrity of the judicial system.
The petitioner's counsel underscored the importance of utilizing all available sources of evidence to ensure the administration of justice in cases involving severe allegations, such as homicide.
The petitioner's capacity to present a comprehensive defense was substantially diminished by the trial court's refusal to order the phone records. The petitioner argued that the prosecution is responsible for establishing culpability beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires the defense to be given an appropriate opportunity to contest and authenticate the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Respondent's Argument
The Learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State of Rajasthan, endorsed the trial court's ruling and contended that Section 94 of the BNSS was inapplicable to the accused. The Public Prosecutor said that the clause was designed for utilization by the court or the responsible police officer, rather than the accused, to request papers or electronic data.
The respondent contended that over a year had elapsed since the relevant events, rendering it impracticable to retrieve the call information, since telecommunications firms often purge such records after a certain duration.
The prosecution argued that the trial court accurately read Section 94 of the BNSS and that the petitioner's motion was an effort to exploit legal provisions to postpone the trial.
The Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner had other methods to contest the witnesses' reliability, and the refusal of the phone records did not materially affect the petitioner's capacity to mount a defense.
The prosecution further contended that the relevant phone records, even if acquired, may not provide conclusive evidence of the witnesses' whereabouts, since the precision of such data might be influenced by several variables.
The Public Prosecutor contended that other evidence existed which the petitioner may use to undermine the witnesses, and that dependence only on call data records could provide an inadequate comprehension of the pertinent events.
The response underscored that procedural regulations exist to prevent superfluous delays in the judicial procedure. The Public Prosecutor said that the petitioner's motion was a strategic maneuver intended to extend the proceedings and impede the prosecution.
The respondent said that the trial court's denial of the application adhered to recognized legal standards and that the petitioner's rights were not violated by this ruling.
Court Analysis
The High Court, headed by Hon'ble Justice Arun Monga, evaluated the relevant sections of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), with particular attention to Sections 94 and 95, after carefully examining the arguments made by both sides.
The Court acknowledged that the official in charge of a police station or the court may issue summonses under Section 94 of the BNSS to obtain electronic communications or documents deemed necessary for an investigation, inquiry, prosecution, or other actions.
However, the Court noted that the clause does not provide the accused the authority to utilize Section 94 to request such information directly.
The Court concurred with the trial court's finding that Section 94 was not designed for direct application by the defendant. Nevertheless, the Court recognized that the unique facts and circumstances of the case necessitated a different method for attaining justice.
Justice Monga underscored that the principal objective of procedural regulations is to promote justice, asserting that procedural technicalities should not obstruct the administration of justice.
Justice Monga emphasized the need of allowing the accused to articulate their position in full. The Court observed that the defense should be given all reasonable chances to contest the prosecution's case in criminal proceedings.
In this connection, the Court cited Section 95 of the BNSS, which permits the court to request papers or records from postal authorities, or by extension, telecom authorities, pertinent to an ongoing case.
The Court adopted a broad reading of Section 95, saying that "postal authority" includes telecommunications service providers in contemporary contexts, since both fulfill analogous tasks in the management and dissemination of communication data.
This interpretation enabled the Court to instruct the trial court to get the call information and location data from the telecoms service providers. Justice Monga emphasized the need of preserving electronic records before they are deleted.
The Court underscored the defendant's constitutionally given right to a fair trial, as provided by Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the ability to present a comprehensive defense.
Denying the defendant access to essential evidence, including phone records and location data, would significantly weaken his defense and jeopardize the trial's integrity. The Court contended that procedural delays should not lead to the obliteration of evidence that may exonerate the defendant.
The Court observed that the petitioner faced accusations under Section 302 of the IPC, which might lead to grave repercussions, including life imprisonment or the death penalty. The Court emphasized the need of guaranteeing a fair trial and the maintenance and presentation of all relevant evidence given the gravity of the accusations.
The court determined that the petitioner would be unable to fully challenge the prosecution's case, perhaps leading to a miscarriage of justice if the phone data was not preserved.
Justice Monga said that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, whilst the accused must be given every reasonable opportunity to question the facts and submit their defense.
The Court expressed concern that the prosecution would exploit a gap resulting from the loss of critical evidence owing to procedural delays. Eliminating this disparity is crucial to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
The High Court later granted the petition, classifying it under Section 95 of the BNSS. The Court directed the trial court to issue the requisite orders to get the call data and location records of witnesses Sendha Ram, Ishra Ram, Ramesh, and Ratan Lal from the relevant telecoms service providers.
The Court underscored the need of preserving and presenting these papers as defense evidence, regardless of the ongoing phase of the trial concerning the presentation of prosecution evidence. Although recognizing the potential for data deletion, the Court ordered that attempts be undertaken to recover it.
Justice Monga underscored the importance of procedural regulations in facilitating the pursuance of justice, rather than impeding it. In order to safeguard the fundamental right to a fair trial, the Court authorized the storage and submission of electronic documents to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present a defense.
The Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial is an essential element of the right to life and personal liberty, as specified in Article 21 of the Constitution. The privilege would be infringed if the accused were barred from submitting essential evidence, including phone records and location data.
The High Court said that the Court's capacity to avert the loss of evidence is crucial for procedural fairness, especially in serious instances like those under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court emphasized the need of preventing procedural technicalities from influencing the defense, as this would compromise the integrity of a fair judicial process.
In the end, the Court determined that the petitioner's application should be granted on its merits, despite the legality of the trial court's rejection under Section 94. The primary objective was to ensure that substantive justice prevailed over procedural formalities, which, if strictly followed, could potentially impede a fair and reasonable resolution of the matter.
