Accused’s Right To Fair Trial Seek Call Detail Record U/S 91 CrPC In Trap Case Prevails Over Police’s Right To…
🔹 Legal Background
Article 21 of the Constitution – Guarantees right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a fair trial.
Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 –
Empowers any Court or officer in charge of a police station to issue summons/order for production of documents or electronic records, if necessary for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings.
This provision ensures that an accused also has access to material evidence in his defence.
Trap Cases (Anti-Corruption cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988)
Often involve pre-arranged calls, trap teams, and alleged demand/acceptance of bribe.
The Call Detail Records (CDRs) of complainant, accused, and investigating officer may become crucial to establish or disprove the prosecution’s version.
🔹 Judicial Position
The judiciary has recognized that:
A fair trial is the overriding consideration in criminal justice.
If CDRs or electronic evidence can help the accused establish his defence, courts must lean in favour of disclosure.
Police or prosecution cannot mechanically oppose such requests on grounds like “hampering investigation” or “confidentiality.”
🔹 Key Case Laws
(a) Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010) 4 SCC 329
SC emphasized that fair trial includes fair opportunity to defend. Any material relevant to defence must be allowed.
(b) Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1
Held: “Right to fair trial is not only the accused’s right but is also in the interest of society.”
Denying access to crucial material violates Article 21.
(c) State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568
While the accused cannot at the stage of framing charge insist on producing defence material, during trial he can seek such production under Section 91 CrPC if it is relevant.
(d) Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) SCC OnLine P&H 17524
HC held that accused in a trap case can seek CDRs under Section 91 CrPC to establish false implication or fabrication of trap story.
(e) Vishnu Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2019) SCC OnLine Raj 1885
Rajasthan HC: When accused seeks CDRs of his own number and that of complainant to prove that no such calls took place, denial of such evidence amounts to denial of fair trial.
(f) P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala (2019) 7 SCC 719
SC recognized right of accused to seek electronic evidence (CDR, CCTV, etc.) under Section 207 CrPC read with Section 91 for fair defence.
🔹 Principles Evolved
Fair trial prevails – Accused’s right to fair defence overrides routine police objections.
Section 91 CrPC is wide – It allows courts to summon electronic records like CDRs when necessary.
Trap cases require strict scrutiny – Since they are often based on pre-arranged conversations, CDRs may be decisive in testing prosecution’s case.
Courts’ duty – Must balance state interest with individual liberty, but lean in favour of disclosure if evidence aids fair defence.
No prejudice to prosecution – If prosecution is genuine, production of CDRs will not harm but rather strengthen the case.
🔹 Conclusion
Thus, in trap cases, the accused’s right to a fair trial and to summon Call Detail Records under Section 91 CrPC outweighs the police’s objections of secrecy or inconvenience. Courts are duty-bound to ensure that the accused is not denied access to crucial evidence, as denial would amount to violation of Article 21 and the very foundation of criminal jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments