Suraj Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment

1. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), has been filed by the Applicant seeking to set aside the orders dated 10.12.2024 and 29.01.2025

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh (Trial Court) and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh (Revisional Court), respectively, whereby the Applicant’s prayer for supply of a copy of the video footage relied upon by the prosecution was rejected.

2. The case arises out of FIR No. 78 of 2023, Police Station Raiwala, District Dehradun, registered on 21.04.2023, alleging that the Applicant and co-accused assaulted and threatened the complainant under the flyover at Chidarwala, forcibly disrobed her, recorded a video of the incident, and made it viral. Based on the said complaint, Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2025, Suraj RawatVs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. proceedings were initiated under Sections 323, 355, 504, and 506 IPC, and a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons.

3. During the course of trial in Criminal Case No. 98 of 2024 (State v. Suraj Rawat & Ors.), the prosecution produced PW-1 for main examination on 30.09.2024 and, in the course of that examination, played a video footage purportedly related to the alleged incident. The said video, contained in a pen drive marked Exhibit MO-1/PW-1, was shown in open court in the presence of the defence counsel.

4. Thereafter, on 29.10.2024, the Applicant moved an application before the Trial Court seeking a copy of the said video footage under Section 207 CrPC, submitting that the footage constituted key prosecution evidence and was necessary for preparing an effective cross-examination and defence. The application was dismissed by order dated 10.12.2024, on the ground that the footage had only been produced during PW-1’s examination and not earlier, and that it was not feasible to provide a copy under Section 207 CrPC. It was further observed that the accused may view the footage during cross- examination.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 04 of 2025 before the Revisional Court. The said revision was dismissed by order dated 29.01.2025, affirming the reasoning of the Trial Court and holding that no jurisdictional error or illegality had been committed. Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2025, Suraj RawatVs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J.

6. It is contended on behalf of the Applicant that the impugned orders are erroneous and suffer from a fundamental misappreciation of the rights guaranteed under Section 207 CrPC and the broader principles of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the video in question forms an integral part of the prosecution’s evidence and was even exhibited during the trial, yet the defence has been denied a copy, thereby crippling the ability of the accused to mount an effective defence.

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further contends that the footage was handed over to the Investigating Officer by the sister of the complainant, and its authenticity, admissibility, and potential manipulation are all matters that require expert evaluation. Without being provided a copy, the accused are deprived of the opportunity to seek independent forensic analysis or prepare an informed cross- examination.

8. It is also argued that the apprehension raised by the prosecution regarding the possible misuse or circulation of the footage can be reasonably addressed by directing the accused to furnish an undertaking or by imposing reasonable conditions to prevent dissemination. The denial of access to material evidence, especially when the prosecution itself has relied upon it, amounts to a violation of due process and the principle of audi alteram partem.

9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the video footage was presented in court during the examination-in-chief Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2025, Suraj RawatVs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. of PW-1, and that the Applicant’s counsel was present when it was shown. It is submitted that the pen drive is now part of the record, and the Applicant is at liberty to view the same during cross-examination. It is argued that the Trial Court was justified in refusing to provide a physical copy in view of the sensitive nature of the footage, which relates to the alleged victim’s privacy.

10. It is further submitted that the request for a copy of the video is not sustainable under Section 230BNSS, as the footage was not part of the charge sheet or relied upon at the stage of filing the police report. The rejection of the application is supported by the principle that the Trial Court must balance fair trial rights with considerations of dignity and privacy of the alleged victim.

11. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

12. The present application assails the rejection of the Applicant’s request for a copy of the video footage relied upon by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief of PW-1 on 30.09.2024. The principal contention is that denial of such copy deprives the defence of a fair opportunity to prepare for cross-examination and impairs the accused’s right to mount an effective defence.

13. The impugned orders dated 10.12.2024 and 29.01.2025 reflect that the said video footage, stored in a pen drive marked Exhibit MO- 1/PW-1, was produced in court on the date of PW-1’s examination and Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2025, Suraj RawatVs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J. was shown in open court in the presence of the defence counsel. It was subsequently sealed and attached to the judicial record. The Trial Court declined to furnish a physical copy, observing that the footage had not been submitted along with the charge sheet and was first brought during trial, hence falling outside the scope of Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 207 CrPC). The Revisional Court affirmed this view.

14. Section 230 of the BNSS, which governs the furnishing of documents to the accused at the pre-trial stage, provides as follows: “When the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate at the commencement of the inquiry or trial, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:- (i) The police report; (ii) The first information report recorded under section 173; (iii) The statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 180 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses; (iv) The confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 183; (v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of section 193.”

15. It is evident that the obligation under this section is limited to materials that are part of the police report. The video footage in question was neither annexed with the police report nor relied upon during the investigation stage under Section 193(5) BNSS. It was introduced during the chief examination of PW-1. Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2025, Suraj RawatVs State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J.

16. Even otherwise, the evidence has not been withheld from the defence. The record discloses that the defence counsel was present when the footage was played, and the Trial Court has clarified that the accused are at liberty to view the contents during cross-examination. The evidence remains accessible in court and can be revisited, under supervision, if necessary.

17. The contention that denial of a personal copy of the video violates the accused’s right to a fair trial must be balanced against countervailing concerns. The subject matter of the footage pertains to an alleged incident involving the disrobing and physical assault of a woman.

18. As regards the demand for a personal copy of the pen drive, it must be noted that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not confer an unfettered right to demand production of materials by the defence. The power to call for documents or objects lies with the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, which provides: “The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing...”

19. The exercise of this power is judicial and discretionary. The Applicant has not submitted a proper application invoking such Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2025, Suraj RawatVs State of Uttarakhand 6 Ashish Naithani J. powers nor suggested an alternative, such as in-camera viewing or certified inspection with safeguards.

20. This Court finds no infirmity or jurisdictional error in the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court or the Revisional Court. The rejection of the request for the supply of video footage does not amount to an abuse of process or a violation of fair trial rights, so as to warrant interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. ORDER

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present application.

22. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is accordingly dismissed. Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH (Ashish Naithani J.)

04.07.2025 Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2025, Suraj RawatVs State of Uttarakhand 7 Ashish Naithani J.