HC bins order directing CBI to supply documents in mass castration case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a 2019 order by a Panchkula special judicial magistrate, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to supply certain documents, including statements of 87 witnesses, to the defence in a case involving allegations of mass castration against Dera Sacha Sauda head Gurmeet Ram Rahim. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari held that the trial court's order ignored well-established procedural safeguards in criminal law.

The case stems from allegations of “grievous injury of castration” inflicted on the complainant and over 400 other male followers under the pretext of spiritual benefits. The allegations led to the registration of an FIR by the CBI. Justice Tiwari also took note of the fact that the high court in 2014 had directed the CBI to investigate the case.

The special judicial magistrate, in February 2019, directed the CBI to provide defence counsel with statements and documents not relied upon by the prosecution, including the testimony of 87 witnesses. The defence argued that the material was necessary to prepare cross-examinations and mount an effective defence, but Justice Tiwari was of the view that the magistrate's decision was made without proper consideration of the legal framework governing the disclosure of documents during a criminal trial.

Referring to Section 161 of the CrPC, Justice Tiwari observed statements recorded by the police during investigation could not be treated as substantive evidence. Such statements might only be used for limited purposes, such as contradicting prosecution witnesses under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The court further held that the trial court must ascertain the relevancy and necessity of documents before ordering their production and could not allow their disclosure merely because they might have a remote bearing on the defence case.

“In case any document has no relevancy or the trial court perceives any dilatory tactic, it is well within the domain of the trial court to decline production of such document,” Justice Tiwari asserted, observing that the trial court failed to evaluate the desirability and relevancy of the materials sought by the defence.

He observed that the order allowed the production of statements from all 87 witnesses, despite the trial court citing examples from only a couple of witnesses. Quoting judicial precedents, he reiterated that disclosure of documents must serve a clear legal purpose and not merely cater to a fishing expedition by the defence.

The law obligates the prosecution to share only the material it relied upon to prove its case. Material outside this ambit could be disclosed only when the court determined their necessity based on legal scrutiny.

The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of the applications dated January 25, 2019, and January 31, 2019, in light of the legal principles outlined in its judgment. Directing expedited proceedings, Justice Tiwari asked the trial court to decide the applications within four weeks.