Accused Only Entitled to Relied-Upon Documents at Section 207 Stage: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court affirmed that while an accused has a constitutional right to a fair trial, the mandate for supplying documents under Section 207 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is restricted to those materials that the prosecution intends to rely upon or has forwarded to the Magistrate.

In a decision emphasizing the balance between investigative integrity and defense rights, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a petition challenging a trial court order that refused the supply of certain electronic evidence, including sensitive police WhatsApp chats and unrelated CCTV footage. The court clarified that the accused cannot demand copies of 'unrelied upon' documents as a matter of right during the pre-charge stage, though they may seek inspection or a list of such materials.

Legal Mandate for Fair Disclosure

The bench observed that the primary objective of Section 207 is to ensure that the accused is not blindsided during the trial. Citing precedents like Nelson Motis vs. Union of India ( "1992 (4) SCC 7 111": 1992 CaseBase(SC) 272) and Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab ( "AIR 2014 SC 1400": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 496), the court noted that the provision aims to provide adequate notice of the material to be used against the accused. The court further elaborated on the concept of 'due process' by referencing Siddharth Vashisth @ Manu Sharma vs. State ( "AIR 2010 SC 2352": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 146), which places an implied obligation on the prosecution to make a fair disclosure of documents intended for reliance.

Regarding the petitioner's demand for electronic evidence, the Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is settled law that, at the stage of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner/Accused is entitled only to the relied upon documents and, at best, a list of unrelied upon documents, but not copies of the unrelied upon documents."

The Distinction Between Relied and Unrelied Documents

Rationale on Sensitive Police Communications

The Petitioner had specifically sought full WhatsApp chats of police groups and extensive CCTV footage from the North-East Delhi riots. The prosecution argued that such chats contained sensitive information and privileged communications. The Court agreed, noting that such documents were not relied upon against the Petitioner and their non-supply would not cause prejudice. The court highlighted that all evidence actually relied upon by the prosecution in the chargesheet had already been supplied to the petitioner.

Court Directions

The Court has the following directions:

"The impugned Order dated 05.08.2023 disposing of the Application under S.207 Cr.P.C., does not merit any interference, and is accordingly, dismissed. The pending Application(s) are disposed of, accordingly."

Background:

The case arose from FIR No. 59/2020, relating to a 'larger conspiracy' behind the 2020 Delhi riots. The petitioner, a student and activist, challenged the Special Judge's order dated August 5, 2023. The petitioner argued that under Section 102(3) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all seized evidence is deemed to be in Magisterial custody and should be open for inspection or supply to ensure a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner relied on P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep vs. State of Kerala ( "AIR 2020 SC 1": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 1089) to argue for a right to view video evidence and Siddharth Vashisth @ Manu Sharma vs. State ( "AIR 2010 SC 2352": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 146) for the necessity of fair disclosure. The state countered that the investigation was ongoing regarding other accused persons and that revealing certain CCTV footage or internal police communications would hamper the administration of justice. The High Court ultimately upheld the trial court's view, concluding that the requisite documents had been provided and the refusal of unrelated, sensitive materials was justified.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P. (CRL.) 3373/2023
Case Title: DEVANGANA KALITA vs. STATE OF DELHI, NCT
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Chaitanya Sundriyal, Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhwat, Mr. Siddharth Kaushal, Mr. Harshwardhan Pushkin Sharma, Advs.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Prasad and Mr. Madhukar Pandey, SPP alongwith Mr. Ayodhya Prasad, Mr. Aarush Bhatia, Mr. Dhruv Pande, Mr. Saravjeet Singh, Mr. Harshil Jain Advocates.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 426