Introduction:

In a significant judgment reinforcing the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, the Rajasthan High Court has held that an accused cannot be denied the opportunity to produce relevant evidence merely because a particular stage of the trial has already concluded. The Court emphasized that where a document has a direct bearing on the determination of crucial facts in a criminal case, procedural technicalities should not prevent its production, particularly when the evidence comes to the knowledge of the accused at a later stage.

The decision came in Ranjeet Raigar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 223, where Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand partly allowed a petition challenging an order of the trial court that had rejected an application filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The case arose from proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), where the age of the prosecutrix was a central issue. The petitioner-accused contended that the prosecutrix was above eighteen years of age at the time of the alleged incident and therefore sought to rely on documentary evidence that, according to him, supported this claim.

The controversy centered on an admission ticket issued by the Community Health Centre, Phagi, Jaipur, where the prosecutrix had later given birth to a child. The accused claimed that the admission records maintained by the hospital reflected the prosecutrix’s age as nineteen years. Believing that this information was relevant to the determination of her age at the time of the alleged offence, he sought production of the admission ticket through an application under Section 91 CrPC.

Section 91 CrPC empowers courts and investigating authorities to summon documents or other materials considered necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, or trial. The provision serves an important role in criminal proceedings by enabling courts to secure documentary evidence that may assist in discovering the truth and ensuring a just adjudication.

However, the trial court rejected the accused’s application. The principal reason assigned was that the prosecutrix had already been cross-examined regarding her age and that sufficient opportunity had previously been afforded to the defence to challenge her version. According to the trial court, reopening the issue at that stage was not justified.

Aggrieved by this decision, the accused approached the Rajasthan High Court. The matter raised an important legal question regarding the balance between procedural efficiency and the fundamental right of an accused to present a complete defence. It also required the Court to consider the scope of Section 91 CrPC and its relationship with the broader principles of natural justice and fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The judgment is significant because it reiterates that the criminal justice system is ultimately concerned with the discovery of truth and that relevant evidence should not be excluded merely on technical grounds when its consideration may materially affect the outcome of the case.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner-accused challenged the trial court’s order on the ground that it had failed to appreciate the circumstances in which the application under Section 91 CrPC was filed. According to the petitioner, the information regarding the prosecutrix’s admission at the Community Health Centre and the age recorded therein was not within his knowledge when her testimony was recorded before the trial court on 29 February 2021.

The petitioner argued that he became aware of the relevant information only at a later stage when he learned that the prosecutrix had given birth to a child at the Community Health Centre, Phagi. Upon acquiring this knowledge, he immediately invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information relating to the admission records maintained by the hospital.

The information was subsequently supplied by the Primary Health Officer of the Community Health Centre on 17 January 2023. According to the petitioner, the records indicated that the prosecutrix had disclosed her age as nineteen years at the time of admission. Since the age of the prosecutrix was a crucial issue in the POCSO prosecution, the petitioner contended that the admission ticket constituted highly relevant evidence.

The petitioner submitted that immediately after receiving the information under the RTI Act, he filed the application under Section 91 CrPC seeking production of the original admission ticket. Therefore, there was no delay or negligence on his part. Rather, he had acted promptly upon obtaining knowledge of the existence of the document.

The accused further argued that the trial court had rejected his application on a purely technical basis without examining the relevance or evidentiary value of the document. He maintained that a criminal trial is not a game of procedural hurdles and that every accused has a fundamental right to present evidence that may assist in establishing his innocence.

The petitioner emphasized that the issue of age was central to the prosecution under the POCSO Act. If documentary evidence existed indicating that the prosecutrix was above eighteen years of age, then such evidence deserved consideration by the court. Refusal to summon the document, according to him, amounted to denial of a fair opportunity to defend himself.

On the other hand, the State opposed the petition and supported the order passed by the trial court. It was argued that the prosecutrix had already been extensively examined and cross-examined regarding her age and that adequate opportunity had been granted to the defence to challenge the prosecution’s case.

The State contended that criminal proceedings should not be unnecessarily prolonged by repeated attempts to reopen issues that had already been addressed during trial. According to the prosecution, the trial court had exercised its discretion properly and there was no justification for interference by the High Court.

The prosecution further emphasized the need to protect the integrity and efficiency of criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving allegations under the POCSO Act. It was submitted that permitting repeated requests for additional evidence could delay the conclusion of the trial and cause hardship to victims.

At the same time, the State acknowledged that the question before the High Court was not merely procedural but also involved considerations relating to the accused’s right to a fair defence. Therefore, the Court was required to determine whether the document sought to be produced possessed sufficient relevance and whether its non-production would prejudice the accused.

The competing arguments thus required the High Court to balance procedural discipline with the constitutional imperative of ensuring a fair trial.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand examined the factual background and the legal principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 91 CrPC before arriving at the conclusion that the trial court’s approach could not be sustained.

At the outset, the Court noted that it was undisputed that when the prosecutrix was examined before the trial court in February 2021, the accused had no knowledge regarding her admission to the Community Health Centre or the age recorded in the admission records.

The Court observed that the accused became aware of these facts only at a later stage. Once he obtained such information, he promptly sought details under the Right to Information Act and thereafter filed the application under Section 91 CrPC. These circumstances demonstrated that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the accused.

Justice Dhand found that the trial court had rejected the application solely on the technical ground that the prosecutrix had already been cross-examined regarding her age. However, the trial court had failed to consider the more important question of whether the document sought to be produced was relevant for the just determination of the case.

The High Court emphasized that criminal courts exist to discover the truth and deliver justice. The procedural framework established by law is intended to facilitate that objective and not to obstruct it. Therefore, when a document comes to the notice of an accused at a later stage and has a direct bearing on a material issue in the case, courts should ordinarily permit its production.

The Court observed that the issue of the prosecutrix’s age was of fundamental significance in the POCSO prosecution. Since the accused was specifically contending that the prosecutrix was above eighteen years of age at the relevant time, any document that could assist the court in evaluating that claim deserved careful consideration.

Justice Dhand reiterated the settled legal principle that an accused cannot be deprived of the opportunity of a fair trial. The Court noted that if relevant evidence becomes available before the conclusion of the trial, the accused must ordinarily be given an opportunity to place such evidence on record.

The judgment strongly emphasized the constitutional dimension of the right to a fair trial. Referring to Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court observed that the principles of natural justice are integral to the concept of a fair criminal process.

According to the Court, denial of access to relevant and admissible evidence may amount to a miscarriage of justice. If evidence capable of assisting the court in reaching a just conclusion is excluded on technical grounds, the fairness of the entire trial process may be compromised.

The Court explained that Section 91 CrPC serves an important purpose within the criminal justice system. It enables courts to summon documents that are necessary or desirable for the proper adjudication of disputes. The provision helps ensure that courts have access to all relevant materials before arriving at their conclusions.

Justice Dhand further observed that Section 91 plays a crucial role in preserving the integrity of judicial proceedings. By facilitating the production of documentary evidence, it minimizes the risk of destruction, loss, or suppression of materials that may be vital for discovering the truth.

The Court stated that the powers under Section 91 must be exercised whenever the production of evidence is likely to assist the court in reaching a fair and informed decision. Such powers should not be curtailed merely because a particular procedural stage has already been completed.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the right to seek production of documents is not unlimited. Addressing the issue of requests for call detail records and tower location data, the Court observed that privacy rights cannot be casually overridden at the instance of an accused.

The Court noted that before directing production of such sensitive information, the accused must establish the necessity and desirability of the evidence and demonstrate its relevance to determining guilt or innocence. This observation highlighted the need to balance fair trial rights with privacy interests.

Returning to the facts of the present case, the Court concluded that the admission ticket maintained by the Community Health Centre could have a bearing on the determination of the prosecutrix’s age and was therefore relevant for the just adjudication of the case.

The Court held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application without examining its merits. Since the document sought to be produced was potentially relevant and the accused had acted promptly upon acquiring knowledge of its existence, the interests of justice required that an opportunity be granted for its production.

Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order to the extent necessary. It directed the trial court to summon the admission ticket from the Community Health Centre, Phagi.

The Court further granted the accused a final opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix concerning the contents of the admission ticket. This direction ensured that both sides would have a fair opportunity to address the evidentiary significance of the document before the trial court.

The judgment is an important reaffirmation of the principle that procedural rules must serve the ends of justice rather than defeat them. By emphasizing the accused’s right to produce relevant evidence and by recognizing the central role of Section 91 CrPC in ensuring fair adjudication, the Rajasthan High Court reinforced the constitutional commitment to fair trial standards. The ruling serves as a reminder that criminal courts must remain focused on discovering the truth and ensuring that justice is based upon a complete and properly tested evidentiary record.