Rajasthan High Court Upholds Accused's Right to Obtain Electronic Records for Fair Trial

Court Balances Right to Privacy with Right to Fair Trial under Article 21

In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court's Jaipur Bench, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, has upheld the right of an accused to requisition Call Data Records (CDR) and mobile tower location details to ensure a fair trial. The judgment was delivered in the case of Dr. Avinash Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, where the accused sought to invoke Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to access crucial electronic records for his defense.

Dr. Avinash Sharma, facing trial for offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, had initially filed an application with the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli, seeking directions to preserve mobile tower locations and CDRs of police officials involved in his case. The application was rejected, prompting Dr. Sharma to approach the High Court.

The court recognized the legislative intent behind Section 94 of the BNSS, emphasizing that it aims to prevent the loss of vital evidence that could aid in establishing the truth during investigations and trials. Justice Dhand noted that while requisitioning such records may infringe upon the privacy of police officials, the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution supersedes these privacy concerns, provided the necessity and desirability of such evidence are demonstrated.

The judgment cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Suresh Kumar v. Union of India, which affirms the admissibility of electronic records in criminal trials under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court underscored that denying access to such records would constitute a miscarriage of justice and violate principles of natural justice.

In balancing the conflicting rights, the court directed the trial court to summon the location data of the cell phone used by Rajesh Kumar Sharma, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Kotputli, for the specified period. Furthermore, the court instructed that any details regarding incoming and outgoing calls from the SHO's phone be censored to protect privacy while facilitating the discovery of truth.

The ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fair trials, emphasizing that the integrity of the judicial process must be maintained by securing relevant evidence. The court's decision to allow partial access to electronic records marks a pivotal moment in the legal landscape, setting a precedent for future cases involving the requisition of electronic evidence.

Bottom Line:

Invocation of Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for requisitioning and preserving Call Data Record (CDR) and mobile tower location details is essential for ensuring a free and fair investigation and trial.

Statutory provision(s): Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Sections 65A and 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Dr. Avinash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810126