If you’re looking to know about section 207 crpc? then, rea this article to know about section 207 crpc
1. INTRODUCTION
The current article primarily addresses the reach of Criminal Procedure Code Section 207, as the title indicates. The primary goal of the criminal justice system is to ensure a speedy and equitable trial. It has two purposes, of course: first, it needs to be equitable for both the prosecution and the accused.
Enabling the accused to represent themselves in a court of justice is a fundamental component of the Right to a Fair Trial. One of the most significant aspects of this chance is to provide copies of all the material the prosecution is relying on against the accused, so alerting him to the charges made against him.”
The right of the accused to a fair trial is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Indian Supreme Court has acknowledged the right to a fair trial as a crucial element of the criminal justice system. The right to a fair trial must always be upheld. In order to defend himself against the charges made against him, the accused individual is entitled to a fair trial. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973’s Section 207 is one such law that safeguards the accused and ensures a fair trial. This Section supports giving the accused access to every document utilized in the course of the inquiry. The Court must give the accused access to all pertinent records, including police reports, FIRs, statements made under Section 161/164 of the CrPC, and any other records about the police investigation. Let’s examine the Section in more detail.
2. SECTION 207
According to Section 207 of the Code, copies of the papers or pertinent portions of the documents the prosecution has relied upon must be given to the accused. The accused must have these papers at no expense to them. These copies are being sent to the accused to familiarize him with the allegations made against him. The accused is also made aware of the resources the prosecution and police have utilized to establish his guilt since he has access to these papers. If the magistrate disregards Section 207, the accused might use this as a good reason to have his conviction overturned.
According to the section, the copies must be sent to the accused right away, and there should be no fees associated with providing them. In the 1992 case of Bhole v. State of M.P., the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the phrase “without delay” in Section 207 does not imply that the copy needs to be delivered right away or forthwith, as the two meanings are fundamentally distinct. The Court expounded on its argument by stating that the phrase “without delay” has far less velocity than the expression “forthwith.” Furthermore, it was decided that the term “shall” in Section 207 is only a directory and is not required. Therefore, the trial will not necessarily be vitiated if these requirements are not met.
According to Section 207, the accused must have access to the following records:
- Police report, FIR recorded under Section 154, statements of all the individuals the prosecution called as witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161(3)
- Admissions and statements made and recorded under Section 164;
- Any other document, or parts of any document delivered to the magistrate; and,
- with the proviso that any documents for which the police officer has made a special request under Section 173(6) to have any document excluded.
A copy of the statement can be sent to the accused in situations where the police request that any document be excluded; this can be done after taking into account the justifications they have offered. Therefore, if the magistrate thinks it appropriate, the accused will get a copy of the statement that the police asked to be omitted. Instead of giving the accused a copy, the magistrate may request that they view the copy in person or through a pleader if they believe the document or extract is extensive.
Seikh Maheboob v. State of Maharashtra (2004) was a written complaint filed by the complainant to the police regarding a homicide case. In that case, the accused made an application asking for a copy of the documents while the trial was going on, but he never received one. The Court decided that the prosecution may have concealed certain documents if they were not produced despite the accused’s request for them.
As per the ruling in the 1990 Harminder Singh Pritam v. State of Maharashtra case, the accused is not required to receive the documents in English; nonetheless, he has the right to obtain a copy of the documents in English upon request.
Since the magistrate who takes notice of the matter has been charged with providing copies of all papers to the accused, Section 207 CrPC addresses this obligation. The CrPC contains two provisos in Section 207. Section 173(6) CrPC allows the magistrate to exclude witnesses or provide copies of their Statements upon request. The magistrate may exercise this discretion in line with the First Proviso. The accused may be permitted to view the extensive papers in person or through a Pleader in the court, as permitted by the Second Proviso, rather than receiving copies of them. A set of these papers is guaranteed to each charged person.
2.1. SCOPE OF SECTION 207 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
Section 207 of the Code addresses providing copies of police-recorded statements, any pertinent documents, or excerpts from the records to the accused. It gives the magistrate the obligation to provide copies of the papers required by the Section and to do so without charging a fee. The magistrate must make sure the accused gets these documents in accordance with Section 238 of the CrPC. The Section makes sure that the prosecution gives the accused the evidence that backs up its case in order to provide them a fair trial.
For the accused to defend himself against the allegations and attempt to construct a fair trial, copies of all relevant documentation must be provided to him.
In the Chirag R. Mehta v. State of Karnataka (2022) case, the Karnataka High Court ruled that the petitioner or accused has the right to get copies of all charge sheet materials. If he is denied access to any of this material, it would constitute an unfair trial, which is against the principles of natural justice and fairness. The National Investigation Agency was ordered by the Karnataka High Court to provide the accused in the Bangalore riots case Muzammil Pasha v. National Testing Agency (2022)—with the papers, which include witness accounts captured by the local police, within a fortnight.
At the outset of a criminal trial, an accused person’s inalienable right is recognized under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The previously mentioned Section guarantees that the accused is fully informed of all documents or statements that are intended to be used against him. A free and fair trial can only be guaranteed by full and equitable disclosure of any records or statements that are allegedly intended to be used against an accused party so that the accused party may defend himself during the trial.
The Calcutta High Court addressed the application of Section 207 in the case of Sri Anish Loharuka v. The State of West Bengal (2022), ruling that if there is a possibility that the identity of the victim may be revealed in cases of sexual offenses against minors, the Court may order the accused or his attorney to inspect the documents rather than providing a copy.
However, in Waheed-Ur-Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (2022), the Supreme Court decided that the accused could be given a copy of the redacted statements, also ensuring the safety of the witnesses, even if the documents contained the statements of protected witnesses. This criterion does not have to be followed, though. The victim’s security has to come first in these situations. There is no wrongdoing committed against the accused in such delicate instances if the court requests that the accused view the papers rather than providing copies.
In many instances, the judiciary has expressed its opinion that the prosecution is not permitted to assert that an accused person is not permitted to file further petitions with the court under Section 207 of the CrPC. Relating copies to the accused is something that Section 207 itself considers. Section 207 was designed to protect the rights of the accused, hence the accused’s perspective must be taken into consideration while interpreting it, not that of the prosecution.
2.2. OBJECT OF SECTION 207 OF THE CRPC
Criminal jurisprudence must protect the rights of the accused because when someone is charged with a crime, their life and freedom are in jeopardy. To ensure trial fairness, no one may be unfairly put in jeopardy. Additionally, the natural justice principles must be respected during the trial process. By ensuring that the accused has a means of obtaining a free and fair trial, Section 207 of the Code satisfies the idea of a fair trial.
In this part, the prosecution’s supporting documentation is to be given to the accused. offering the accused the chance to defend himself as a result. The accused will also be made aware of the allegations and evidence used against him as a result, providing him with a preview of the issues the trial would include.
To help the accused understand what to expect during the investigation or trial and to help him prepare for his defense, the aforementioned Section aims to give copies of documents and statements to the accused.
3. WHAT ARE THE DOCUMENTS UNDER SECTION 207?
An accused person has a right to know the allegations that have been brought against him, according to the natural justice principles. He must thus be given access to the papers or other excerpts that the prosecution has used to support its case for his guilt in the court. The accused must get the documents from the magistrate before the start of the criminal procedure. The accused is entitled to copies of these papers from the Court. In this section, “document” refers to any of the documents that the prosecution has utilized and relied upon to substantiate the allegations against the accused. The accused may only prepare for his defense with these documents.
The Court addressed the scope of its authority to divulge papers under Section 207 in the 2020 case of Arvind Kejriwal v. State NCT of Delhi. It concluded that when Sections 173(5), 173(6), and 207(1) of the Code are read together, it is evident that the police officer must give the magistrate all of the statements made in accordance with Section 173(5)(b) so that he can give the accused copies of these records as required by Section 207.
3.1. LIST OF DOCUMENTS TO BE FURNISHED TO THE ACCUSED
Section 207 requires the provision of a police report, a written complaint, recorded testimonies and confessions, and any other relevant documents or extracts. Let’s examine these resources briefly.
3.1.1. POLICE REPORT
The word “report” often refers to the communication or dissemination of information, or the delivery of information on any occurrence or other subject. A report is a formal, written summary of the facts of a case or a suggestion to carry out a certain action. According to Section 173 (2) of the CrPC, a “police report” is any report that a police officer forwards to a magistrate. It is a document that lists the details of the police case. The filing of this report to the magistrate results in the start of criminal proceedings.
The definition of a “police report” was established in the State of West Bengal v. Anwar @ Answar Ali @ Anwar Rehman in 2000.
The Court declared that only the report required by Section 173(2) is included by the definition of “police report” found in Section 2(r) of the. The records or declarations covered by Section 173(5) of the Code are not included. The Court went on to say that the legislature would have made notice of the documents and remarks recorded under Section 173(5) if it had intended to include them in a police report. Not even in the definition of a police report is it stated that the report will no longer be legitimate without these declarations or supporting documentation.
Establishing the case’s facts and circumstances and substantiating the accusations made against the accused are the primary goals of police reports. The police report serves as a synopsis of the information required to begin a more thorough investigation into the crime. The police officer is required by Section 173 of the Code to provide the magistrate with all written and spoken records and materials. This will therefore assist him in thoroughly reviewing the case’s facts and circumstances before determining whether or not it is appropriate to take cognizance.
What happens during the trial depends largely on the police report. In Om Prakash and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (2022), the Allahabad High Court recognized the importance of the police report, but it also decided that if the magistrate has taken cognizance based on a police report, he is not obliged to write a fully reasoned order if it is clear from the order that the magistrate has carefully examined the material on record.
3.1.2. FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
A first information report, often known as a FIR, is a document that gives the police or the person in control of the police station information about a crime that has been committed and is subject to legal penalties. This is the information sent to the authorities on the occurrence of a crime for which there is a legal penalty. It forms the foundation of the inquiry in criminal cases.
This data is transformed into the First Information Report by writing. The Code’s Section 154 lists the provisions for filing an “FIR,” yet the word is not defined in any court document. The FIR initiates an investigation when a crime is committed that carries legal penalties . Reduced written information about cognizable offenses that the police officer receives from the informant is his obligation.
In conclusion, the definition of FIR is as follows:
- It is data provided to the authorities by any informant or source used by the police;
- The data must be connected to the commission of the legally actionable offense;
- It is the initial piece of information acquired at that particular moment and serves as the basis for the start of the inquiry.
- In State of U.P. v. Mukesh (2013), the Court determined that the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) constitutes notification that an incident has taken place.
Police are required to file a formal complaint (FIR) upon receiving any information on the occurrence of an incident that includes a criminal offense. It is to be emphasized that just the primary information received must be reported in the regular journal, as required by Section 154 of the Code. Furthermore, this data should not be regarded as the source of all facts.
It is important to note that information obtained through an anonymous phone message that does not explicitly state that the information relates to the conduct of a crime will not be considered a formal complaint (FIR).
It does not follow that such material would be handled as a formal complaint only because it was received first at that particular moment. Depending on the specifics of the case, the information obtained may or may not result in a formal complaint.
In the 2013 case of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, the Court decided that the word “must” in Section 154(1) of the Code is required. The use of the term “must” in the legislation makes it evident what the law intends and requires the police to file a First Information Report (FIR) whenever they receive information about an offense that is punishable by law. The Court further declared that the offense must be cognizable as the only requirement for filing a First Information Report (FIR).
Early information on the circumstances surrounding a crime is sought after, and this is why it is important to provide for the rapid filing of a formal complaint. The delayed filing of the First Information Report (FIR) hinders the spontaneity of the investigation. The veracity of the facts and evidence may also be harmed by this. The legitimacy of a formal police report is compromised when it is reduced to writing following the drafting of an inquest report.
3.1.3. STATEMENT OF WITNESSES
During an investigation into a crime that is punishable by law, the police have the right to question witnesses who may have knowledge of the case’s facts and then put that information in writing. The Code’s Section 161 lists the police’s powers to interrogate witnesses. To get a statement, the police are not granted the authority to beat or detain someone under this section. When trying to get a statement out of a witness, the police shouldn’t use force. A statement made by this Section during the cross-case inquiry is not regarded as admissible.
In colloquial language, interrogation also refers to the examination of the accused. It is appropriate that the police officer leading the inquiry does the examination. Though they must be signed by both the recording officer and the investigating officer, under some extraordinary circumstances the chief constable or the police station writer may record the statements. The administration of an oath or affirmation during the examination is not required by Section 161(3). The accused will get access to the statements that were recorded by Code Section 161.
Throughout the examination, the subject is required to respond to the questions posed by the police. If answering these questions might subject the accused to a criminal prosecution or forfeiture, he will not be coerced into answering. The subject must never lie when being questioned; they must always tell the truth. According to Section 161(2) CrPC, the accused has the right to silence.
If a witness declines to respond to a police query, they may face penalties under Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, Section 193 of the IPC will penalize the witness if he provides the authorities with false information.
Under Section 161(3), the police question a witness. Following his interview with the individual who knows or has knowledge of the case’s facts and circumstances, the investigating police officer will put those comments in writing. When documenting the statements, the police cannot take an excessively lengthy time. In the case when the police unreasonably prolonged the process for over ten days, it has also been discovered via investigation that the records include contradicting assertions, which would undermine the veracity and dependability of the information. But the investigating police officer has to question the court about why there was a delay of this kind.
The case’s validity won’t be impacted by a very little delay. However, there’s a good likelihood that the prosecution’s case will be impacted if the victim’s examination is delayed for an inexplicable reason.
It is crucial to recognize that the prosecution cannot in any way utilize these remarks, which were recorded by Section 161 of the CrPC, as evidence. On the other side, it can support the points made by the prosecution. The prosecution’s claims can be refuted by the defense using these remarks. It is also noteworthy that in situations when the prosecution witness becomes hostile, the public prosecutor has the option to cross-examine the witness to use the remarks he made by Section 161 of the CrPC to demonstrate contradiction.
Such utterances may be used as evidence by the prosecution if they are covered by Section 27 or Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872. The police-recorded statements are not reliable sources of information. If someone makes remarks that are recorded under Section 161 but later passes away, the words may be regarded as a deathbed declaration. Additionally, the Court is not permitted to use remarks made in violation of Section 161, not even to cast the witness in a negative light.
3.1.4. CONFESSIONS AND STATEMENTS
There is no definition for “statement” in the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the phrase can have a broad meaning and is highly relevant to the criminal justice system. According to Section 164 of the Code, a magistrate has the authority to document any declarations or admissions that an individual makes during a police investigation, or even after it has concluded. This, however, cannot occur once the investigation or trial has begun. Only the statements that have been recorded under Chapter 12 of the CrPC are admissible for this. The Allahabad High Court declared in State v. Ram Autar that confessions made after the investigation was done and the trial had commenced would not be considered.
Copies of the statements and confessions made by Section 164 of the Code must be provided by the magistrate. This clause guarantees the accused party a fair and unrestricted trial as well. The magistrate has the authority to record a witness’s statement or confession if he believes doing so will guarantee a fair and impartial trial.
The confession or statement made by this section must be signed and documented while adhering to the guidelines outlined in Section 281 of the Code. The confession must be positively signed by the subject of the recording. The accused will also be informed by the court that he is not obligated to convert and that he cannot be coerced into doing so. The magistrate is in charge of ensuring that the confession is made voluntarily. It should be emphasized that this section contains all types of confessions, from witnesses as well as the accused.
While the term “confession” here refers to an admission made by the person accused of a crime, in which he proclaims or suggests that he has committed a crime, the statement recorded under this section has a very limited scope and cannot be used as substantive evidence.
When the court worries that the witness may retract his testimony or that it may have been altered, these are recorded to correct the assertions that were made.
3.1.5. DOCUMENT OR RELEVANT EXERCISE
According to Section 207(v) of the Code, copies of additional documents or pertinent excerpts from the documents that form the basis of the prosecution’s case against the accused and that have been documented under Section 173(b) of the Code must be sent to him.
In the 2020 Arvind Kejriwal v. State of the NCT Delhi case, the court ruled that the police must turn over all documents and evidence to the magistrate to have it brought to the court’s attention, even if they believe some particular material is not relevant to the prosecution’s case. The police do not have the right to make the final decision and provide the magistrate with all the evidence.
Documents or papers too numerous to list, such as postmortem reports, handwriting reports or reports of fingerprints, sanction copies, reports of chemical examination books of accounts, bills, registers, correspondence, and copies of checks, can even be included in the term “any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the magistrate with the police report under S. 173(5).” If there are several of these documents or materials, the court may ask the accused to view them in person or through a pleader instead of providing copies, under the decision in Mithan Lal v. State Of Haryana And Anr. (1979).
3.1.6. POSITION OF LAW ABOUT THE SCOPE OF SUCH SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS
3.1.6.1. ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ANR. V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (2021)
The petition was filed under Sections 482/483 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in an attempt to overturn a lower court decision that denied the accused/petitioners a copy of certain statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at the level of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The chargesheet was submitted with additional statements made by the same witness according to Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Based on a combined interpretation of Sections 173(5), 173(6), and the first proviso to Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the Court determined that the police officer was required to provide the Magistrate with copies of all statements mentioned in Section 173(5)(b) for the Magistrate to provide copies to the accused by Section 207 Cr.P.C. The investigative agency was required by the High Court to present all of the evidence it had gathered to the court, without selectively presenting just the facts that contradicted the prosecution’s narrative. Paragraphs 43–44.
The prosecution argued that the statement was just oral and refuted the petitioners’ assertion that it had been recorded. Nonetheless, the Court decided that the prosecution’s record refuted this. The Court determined that the aforementioned comment became a Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement since it was written down and referenced in many other papers. The petition was granted by the court, which also instructed the trial court to take the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement into account when issuing the charge order.
3.1.6.2 MISS A v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. (2020)
This ruling emphasizes the victim of a crime’s rights on the provision of documentation. The Supreme Court ruled that an accused person is not entitled to copies of their Section 164 statements simply because the charge sheet was filed, in response to an appeal against a High Court ruling that required the accused to provide the appellant’s or victim’s Section 164 statement. According to the Court, the accused’s entitlement to get a copy of these statements only becomes relevant once cognizance is granted, at the point where Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. are considered (para 15-20).
3.1.6.3 SIDDHARTHA VASHISHT AND MANU SHARMA V. STATE OF DELHI (2010)
The accused argued in his appeal against conviction that the prosecution’s conduct infringed upon his fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial, as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court was hearing the matter. Specifically, it was argued [Paragraph 183] that the trial was unconstitutional because the prosecution had disregarded evidence (lab reports) in violation of the obligation of disclosure. There was also an argument made in Paragraph 189 that the obligation of disclosure extended beyond the evidence the prosecution was using. The Court’s remarks on this matter are significant, even if the appeal was denied.
In paragraphs 197–199, the Supreme Court underlined that a fair trial and a fair investigation were not only the right of the accused but also a fundamental part of the rule of law. According to its interpretation, this idea of a fair trial is “the very foundation of a fair investigation and fair trial,” and it links it to the transparency requirements imposed on prosecutors and investigating agencies [Paragraph 220]. The Court viewed a fair disclosure as “implied,” stating that it “would take in its ambit furnishing of a document which the prosecution relies upon whether filed in court or not.” This document ought to be provided to the accused in its entirety. In addition, if a document is discovered during an investigation that the prosecutor believes is pertinent and will aid in discovering the truth, it ought to be provided to the accused as well. The materials that are required to be given to an accused person included, for this paragraph (219), any materials that were explicitly supplied to the court during an inquiry conducted by Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. However, it did point out that the disclosure requirements were not absolute and that the Indian prosecutor’s duties differed from those required by English law.
3.1.6.4 V.K. SASIKALA V. STATE (2012)
The applicant requested copies of documents and the ability to view documents that were allegedly filed with the court but had not been produced by the prosecution in a pending trial. Two Karnataka High Court rulings that had maintained the denial of the applicant’s two pleas were being challenged by the Supreme Court. In order to better answer the questions and prevent prejudice when making the 313 statement, the applicant filed the applications in question during the recording of her Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Neither during nor even after the Section 207 proceedings had the applicant raised any objections to the non-supply of this material.
The Supreme Court granted the petition and allowed the petitioner to view the court file. The claim that the Applicant’s entitlement to the material was foreclosed because it was brought up late in the trial was expressly rejected by the Court in doing so. The Court decided that the allegations of bias were fact-specific and that trial courts were required to take into account any plea implying prejudice as a result of the failure to provide information as soon as possible. Additionally, the Court inferred that the obligation of disclosure must encompass all materials filed in court and not just the materials the prosecution relies on, since failing to do so would leave an accused party defenseless against the suppression of evidence that could clear them by investigators or prosecutors.
3.1.6.5 SHAKUNTALA V. STATE OF DELHI (2007)
The accused person contested the charges against him in an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., claiming that the lower courts had ignored several of his provided papers that were not part of the police chargesheet. The Delhi High Court Single Judge Bench was discussing this case. Some more Section 161 Cr.P.C. comments that the investigative agency had recorded in this matter were concealed. The prosecutor has the right to rely on whatever evidence that he has gathered and request that the court take it into account while determining the appropriate charges, according to the ruling of the High Court. The investigating agency may be asked to put the full investigation and case diary before the court before filing charges if it is brought to the court’s attention that the agency purposefully concealed evidence or documents to prevent the truth from being known. After taking into account this information, the High Court dismissed the accused from the allegations brought up under Section 406, IPC, by the Ld. MM, which was also affirmed by the Ld. Sessions Judge.
4. JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF SECTION 207, CRPC
4.1 SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRENCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS V. SATYENBHOWMICK AND ORS. (1981)
4.1.1 FACTS OF THE CASE
In Satyen Bhowmick’s case, the defendant was accused of violating the Official Secrets Act of 1923. The accused was detained by Sections 3, 9, and 10 of the Act because it was believed that he had disclosed to the adversaries certain extremely sensitive military secrets. The accused’s act of disclosing the secrets caused great harm to the nation. The prosecution asked the court to order that specific copies of statements not be given to the accused during the ongoing committee investigation. The defense attorney was permitted to note those remarks, though. The defense attorney then protested, saying that because the accused had raised several important points in those notes, he was entitled to this privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. The magistrate had then requested the opposition to provide those notebooks for examination. The judge agreed with the attorney’s argument. The state thereafter submitted a modification and appeared before the Supreme Court.
4.1.2. ISSUE
The application of Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and whether the accused in situations involving this Act is entitled to copies of documents or statements were the sole issues brought up in this case.
4.1.3. JUDGEMENT
The accused has the right to obtain copies of all statements or records that the prosecution has used to bolster its case or as the basis for its accusations, the Supreme Court ruled, even in cases where the accused is being held for offenses under the Official Secrets Act of 1923. The Court went on to say that the magistrate ought to have taken legal action against the defense attorney for disobeying his directive to display the notebooks. The Court made it clear that Section 14 of the Act does not apply to giving copies to the accused.
4.2. KISHOR V. SUDAMA PRASAD AND ORS. (2001)
The goal of Section 207 of the Code, according to the Madhya Pradesh High Court in this instance, is to inform the accused of the allegations filed against him. Additionally, it was decided that the investigating officer was forced to transmit copies of all the documents, statements, and supporting documentation to the magistrate in order for the latter to give copies to the accused. This is in order to ensure a free and fair trial. According to Code Section 173(5)(a), the police officer is required to transmit the copies to the magistrate. When read collectively, Sections 173(5), 173(6), and 207(1) make it abundantly evident that the police have an obligation to provide the magistrate with copies of all recorded statements, since this will aid the magistrate in carrying out his responsibilities.
4.3. DHARAMBIR V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (2008)
4.3.1. FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner in the Dharambir case was charged with violating Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7 through 12, and Section 13(2) of the Indian Penal Code in addition to Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The police charge sheet included a few phone conversations between the accused parties, which were later saved on a hard drive and stored at the Central Bureau of Investigation’s specialized section. The tapped phone records were investigated properly and sent to the learned Special Judge in New Delhi after the right process was followed. Copies of the charge sheets, transcripts of the phone calls, and other pertinent documentation were given to the accused. Nonetheless, the learned Judge denied the accused parties’ request to provide mirror image copies of the hard drives when they applied to the Special Judge. The accused were dissatisfied with the learned single judge’s decision and filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4.3.2. ISSUES
- Do the hard disks that included the recorded phone conversations fall under the definition of “papers” for Section 173(5)(a) of the CrPC, as amended by Section 207(v) of the CrPC?
- Given that they have only examined a small number of the collected papers, is the prosecution free to select which of the documents needs to be sent to the accused?
- Can the trial court provide those copies as well, even if the prosecution claims not to have relied on them?
- Is it a violation of the accused’s rights when papers are withheld during the pre-charge phase?
- Is it necessary to send the accused the whole recordings, or may the prosecution merely offer pertinent excerpts from a hard drive?
4.3.3. JUDGEMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS
The Court determined that the telephone recordings that were kept on the drive fall under the definition of “document” as given by the Indian Evidence Act. The Court further stated that the statements made in accordance with Section 161 of the Code, which is also sent to the police, are not the same as the documents that were previously sent to the court during the course of the investigation or that the police have forwarded to the court along with charge sheets. It is evident from a cursory review of the pertinent Code clauses that the legislature intended for these two to be treated separately. Regarding the witness statements that the police have recorded, it has some discretion over whether to disseminate them or not. On the other hand, the police are required to give the magistrate a plausible explanation and evidence of public interest. Additionally, it was said that the magistrate may, in its discretion, even give the accused copies of this nature under the first proviso of Section 207(v). It should be noted that this is not the case with the documentation; all of the documents must be presented to the magistrate by the police. Additionally, the magistrate is forced to send these papers to the accused in cases involving them, except large ones.
4.4. UJJAWAL DAS GUPTA V. STATE (2008)
4.4.1. FACTS OF THE CASE
Three statutes were at issue in the Ujjawal Das case: the Officials Secrets Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the Code of Criminal Procedure. This case was extremely similar to the Satyen Bhowmick case that was previously addressed. A former brigadier who worked for the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) at the time was the petitioner in this case. The petitioner faced accusations of providing certain foreign agents with materials he had obtained from the National Security Council Secretariat, where he was employed at the time. The papers were taken from the petitioner on three pen drives that were found to contain them at the time of the inquiry and his detention. Also, his official laptop included the data. Since the magistrate had refused the petitioner access to specific copies of the papers that the respondent had relied on, the petitioner filed a High Court of Delhi petition.
4.4.2. ISSUES
Is it the case that these papers, which pertain to offenses under the Official Secrets Act, should have been sent to the accused regardless of whether Section 14 of the Act was involved in their supply?
4.4.3. JUDGEMENT AND OBSERVATIONS
The petitioner is entitled to get the records, and the Special Judge’s ruling has been overturned by the court, which based its decision on the Satyen Bhowmick case. The ruling stated that the legal situation cannot change just because the issue falls under the Official Secrets Act’s jurisdiction. The accused has the right to an unhindered, fair trial, hence copies must be provided. Considering that the secrecy and privacy of those documents must be maintained by both the accused and his lawyer.
4.5. MANJEET SINGH KERA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2013)
4.5.1 FACTS OF THE CASE
The charges in the Manjit Khera case were based on Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 13(1)(e).A copy of the initial complaint, which was submitted by an unidentified party, was requested to be provided by the prosecution in an application filed by the accused. The trial court rejected the accused’s application. Following that, the petitioner applied with the High Court, but it was denied there as well. As a result, he appeared before the Supreme Court.
4.5.2. ISSUE
Since the investigation began because of the initial complaint filed by an unidentified person, does the prosecution have to provide the accused with the original complaint?
4.5.3. JUDGEMENT AND OBSERVATION
The courts have noted in several instances where multiple papers are taken into custody throughout a criminal inquiry. The investigative agency examines the papers in two categories and applies a reasonable degree of thought when going through them. These two groups are comprised of one that is pro-prosecution and the other that is pro-accused. The prosecution must provide the accused access to all papers, the court said, even if doing so may put the accused in a better light. If certain papers were not originally transmitted and the accused later requests them, they must be given to the accused. The accused has an unalienable right to have the papers provided to them to ensure a fair and impartial trial.
4.6. TARUN TYAGI V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (2016)
4.6.1. FACTS OF THE CASE
Section 14b(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 63 and 63 B were utilized by the Central Bureau of Investigation to charge the accused in Tarun Tyagi’s case. Along with other hard drive-stored papers that were not provided to the appellant in this case, the prosecution filed the charge sheets. The accused’s request for these materials was turned down by both the trial court and the high court. In light of this, the appellant petitioned the Supreme Court.
4.6.2. ISSUE
The question on the table for the court to consider was whether the accused was still entitled to copies of those records notwithstanding the prosecution’s lawyers’ fear that providing the records at this point may lead to the accused misusing them.
4.6.3. JUDGEMENT AND OBSERVATION
The accused has the right to get all copies of the papers, as stipulated by Section 207 of the Code, and the prosecution did not contest this fact at any point throughout the proceedings. The prosecution’s primary argument, though, is that releasing the materials at that point may have unfavorable effects. One crucial issue that must be addressed is that should the accused receive a copy of the drive, there should never be any chance that the drive’s contents may be altered. The accused’s plea was denied by the court, which found that while it is important to protect such materials, the accused’s rights must also be respected by giving him a fair chance to defend himself.
5. EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 207
There are specific exceptions that allow the police or magistrate to limit the amount of copies of documents or materials that must be provided to the accused. These exceptions allow them to withhold certain documents or statements from the accused. The magistrate and police officer have been given some leeway or discretion to withhold certain papers. As previously mentioned, the magistrate has the authority to withhold some lengthy papers or statements. However, are there any instances in which the magistrate has the authority to withhold records, regardless of their volume?
In a number of cases pertaining to the “Modesty of women” category of the Indian Penal Code or cases involving offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the prosecution has asked that the accused not be granted access to specific documents or materials, including electronic evidence, because doing so may violate the victim’s rights or involve extremely sensitive material. Despite Section 207’s explicit provision that allows for the withholding of extensive information, courts have occasionally granted the prosecution’s request to conceal certain further records in light of the seriousness of the case. By doing this, the rights of the accused, the victim, and the prosecution are kept in balance. The courts have authorized the withholding of the papers, even if they are not extensive, and have just requested that the accused view them.
Though they are not extensive, the court decides to withhold the papers in situations where the prosecution argues that the accused may misuse them, or if the materials are extremely sensitive and there is a legitimate fear behind such arguments. Additionally, courts have the authority to force the accused to review papers rather than provide copies in situations where they determine that providing any document might compromise the victim’s identity.
In many cases, the record is so large that it is physically impossible to share it with the accused. In handling such a case, it is crucial to remember that the magistrate is empowered by the Proviso to Section 207 CrPC to refuse to provide the accused with extensive documentation, stating that he can only view it in person or through a pleader in court. If the accused objected, the magistrate would be required to follow the rules of Section 207 CrPC in any case.
Despite the progress in technology, several courts have started requiring the prosecution to provide an electronic duplicate of every document and furnish a soft copy of the papers to guarantee adherence to S.207 CrPC.
5.1. P.GOPALKRISHNAN V. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. (2020)
5.1.1. FACTS OF THE CASE
- Gopalakrishnan was one of the defendants in a case where there was a trial for an offense that was punished by Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. An electronic evidence piece that was used by the prosecution to support their case was not included in the materials and records that were provided to the appellant in this instance. There was reportedly a video of the incident included in the electronic evidence. Through the submission of an application to the Judicial Magistrate, which was ultimately denied, the appellant requested a copy of that video. According to reports, the electronic evidence contained a video of the incident. The appellant sought a copy of the film by submitting an application to the Judicial Magistrate, which was ultimately turned down. Nonetheless, the appellant was granted access to view the film by the magistrate. He applied with the High Court of Kerela after feeling wronged by the ruling, but it was also denied. As a result, the appellant decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.
5.1.2. ISSUE
The issue of the accused’s right to a fair trial and his or her rightto privacy was addressed by the Apex Court in the current case. Whether memory card contents fall under the definition of documents as specified by the Indian Evidence Act was the primary question on the Court’s agenda. The court’s authority to reject the appellant’s request for access to the memory card contents—which the prosecution had used to support its case and establish the accused’s guilt—was the second point of contention expressed.
5.1.3. JUDGEMENT AND OBSERVATIONS
The Court determined that the victim’s right to privacy must be balanced with the accused’s right to a free and fair trial, which is protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is imperative to keep the equilibrium between the two essential rights. The Court used the larger public interest test because it saw a conflict between two rights. It further declared that since the CrPC is a living statute, cases must be handled with consideration for how it is relevant to the current state of affairs and any changes that may have occurred. It was also noted that the offense for which the accused is accused is highly severe and that in circumstances like these, copies must be provided to the accused while taking in mind his rights. To balance this tension that has developed between the two rights, it is equally crucial to consider the victim’s right to privacy. It is important to keep in mind that the papers contained here were the contents of the memory card. In light of the unique circumstances of the case, the Court ultimately decided that the accused would only be permitted to read the contents of the memory card. This is even though, as an electronic record, the document cannot be considered voluminous and might have been provided.
6. CRITICISM OF SECTION 207
Copies of the prosecution’s papers must be given to the accused by the Court as mandated by this Section. In addition to the statements made according to Sections 161, 164, and 171 of the Code, the Court is required to provide copies of any additional pertinent documents or extracts from the police report that are cited by the prosecution. The accused’s rights, as specified by the Indian Constitution, are violated when this clause is not followed. However, it has been seen that the accused manipulates these statements and evidence utilizing a range of tactics in a number of cases, especially those that are well-known. Additionally, in certain situations where the accused comes from a stable family with a solid history, they attempt to intimidate the victim and their family to hurt them and use their position of authority to suppress the witnesses. Once the witnesses are aware of the records and testimony that the prosecution may use against them, they occasionally attempt to buy their way out of the situation. In these kinds of situations, it becomes extremely difficult to condemn the accused, leading to even the offenders’ acquittal.
7. CONCLUSION
This Section was specified to give the accused an adequate chance to defend himself and to enable a free and fair trial through the provision of copies of papers and other materials. The Code’s Section 207 is an essential component of criminal jurisprudence and is vital in guaranteeing the accused’s safety and rights protection. This section’s purpose is to inform the accused of the evidence against him so that, when the trial begins, he will have an opportunity to defend himself. The magistrate is required to provide copies of the documents to the accused, according to many rulings from the High Court and the Apex Court.
8. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)
8.1. When is it deemed appropriate to send a police report to the magistrate?
When a police report is made in the way specified by Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., it is considered finished.
8.2. When deciding whether to order papers, does the magistrate have any restrictions on his or her discretion?
The magistrate typically has relatively little choice when it comes to providing papers, as the courts have noted in several rulings. Except in cases when the papers are very large, the magistrate is required to provide the copies. He may place an inspection order in certain circumstances.
8.3. Can the contents of a pen drive or memory card be regarded as papers for Section 207 of the Code?
It should be highlighted that whether or not a given piece of material qualifies as a document depends on its nature, not where it has been kept. Depending on the information included in such content and how important it is to the prosecution’s case.
8.4. Is the magistrate required to provide the records about the further inquiry as well?
It should be noted that the magistrate is required to provide a copy of the supplemental charge sheets and reports to the accused in cases where the investigating officer has been permitted by the magistrate to conduct a further investigation and where the supplementary report contains information about the accused
Hope this article: section 207 crpc was useful to you, feel free to share it in your circle, if you have any doubts ask it in the comment section, if you’re seeking for legal advice then feel free to connect with list of criminal lawyers in bangalore for better clarity in handling your legal problem.