Courts should safeguard right of accused to access material not relied on by prosecution: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that criminal courts should endeavour to safeguard the right of accused persons to access all material collected during a criminal investigation, even if they are not relied on by the prosecution during trial [Varghese Kuruvilla v State of Kerala & anr]..Justice C Jayachandran was dealing with a case that raised the question of whether a rule providing for such access and which came into effect in 2022 could be invoked for the benefit of a man against whom a chargesheet was filed in 2014. The rule in focus was Rule 19(4) of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982, which was introduced by an amendment in 2022. "The benefit of the rule has to be translated to action in all cases, where it is possible to do so … It should be the endeavour of every criminal court to add life and force to Rule 19(4), so as to safeguard an important right of the defense, enshrined in under Article 21 of the Constitution … Any interpretation otherwise would defeat the very purpose of introduction of the rule," the Court said in its September 5 ruling. .The Court was dealing with a plea by one Varghese Kuruvila, who is the sole accused in a corruption case pending before a special court in Kottayam. Kuruvilla had filed an application under Rule 19(4) on May 15, 2024, requesting access to documents not relied upon by the prosecution.However, the special court dismissed his application stating that Rule 19(4) was introduced as an amendment only in the year 2022, after the final report for his case was submitted in 2014. The special court said that this rule could not be applied retrospectively in Kuruvilla's case and dismissed his application.Kuruvilla challenged the special court order before the High Court, which disagreed with the special court's view. "The focus should not be on the prospectivity and restrospectivity, but on the purpose, for which Rule 19(4) was introduced; and any interpretation should be to uphold and operationalize such right conferred under Rule 19(4)," the High Court said. .The Court took note of the amicus curiae's submission that Rule 19(4) was introduced in light of a Supreme Court ruling in a suo motu case, namely In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others.The rule stated that:"Every accused shall be supplied with statement of witnesses recorded and a list of documents as are mentioned in Sections 173, 207 and 208 of the Code. In addition, every accused shall be supplied with a list of the material objects which the Investigation Officer relies upon. The list shall also specify those statements, documents and material objects that are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer."This meant that the accused should be provided not only with documents the prosecution intends to use but also a list of materials collected but not relied on during trial.The amicus also pointed out the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ponnusamy P v State of Tamil Nadu (2022 SCC Online SC 1543), which observed that denying such access could violate the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 (life and personal liberty) of the Constitution..In view of these two rulings, the High Court opined that limiting the benefit of Rule 19(4) only to cases after 2022 would be unconstitutional under Article 21. The Court noted that if the prosecution chooses not to rely on certain materials, it could indicate that the materials might weaken their case or even help the defence. Hence, withholding such documents could be detrimental to the accused’s right to a fair trial, the Court observed. The Court proceeded to set aside the trial court order under challenge and directed that the petitioner be provided with a list of the materials sought..The petitioner, Varghese Kuruvila, was represented by Advocates Akhil Vijay and CS Ajayan.Senior Public Prosecutor Rekha S appeared for the state.Special Public Prosecutor A Rajesh appeared for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.Advocate Renjith B Marar served as amicus curiae..[Read Order]