Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 660 (KER)

GOPAKUMAR S/O KARUTHAKUNJU v. STATE OF KERALA

2022-08-02

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

body2022
ORDER : 1. The petitioner is the sole accused in SC No. 440/2020 on the file of the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Kollam (for short ‘the court below’). He faced trial for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC. 2. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner committed murder of his wife. 3. During the investigation stage, the petitioner requested the investigating agency to subject him to scientific test including brain mapping, polygraph and narco analysis to prove his innocence. Accordingly, brain mapping and polygraph test were conducted, but narco analysis was not conducted. 4. The prosecution, however, did not produce the result of scientific examination along with the final report. Hence, the petitioner filed an application at the court below as Annexure I to give direction to the investigating officer to produce the scientific examination result of brain mapping and polygraph examination. The court below after hearing both sides dismissed the said application as per Annexure II order. The said order is under challenge in this Crl. M.C. 5. I have heard Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. G. Sudheer, the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. It is not in dispute that during the stage of investigation, the investigating agency conducted brain mapping as well as polygraph test of the petitioner at his instance. However, the result of those examinations were not made part of the final report. The petitioner was not supplied with the copies of the same also. The court below dismissed Annexure I petition holding that the production of those documents are not necessary or desirable at this stage. It is true that those tests were conducted for the purpose of investigation. However, the petitioner who voluntarily subjected himself to the scientific examination has every right to know its result. The petitioner can very well use the same during trial. In Annexure I petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that the test result of brain mapping and polygraph examination are directly connected to the facts in issue and were deliberately suppressed by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the latest decision of the Apex Court in re: Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2021) 10 SCC 598 . The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the latest decision of the Apex Court in re: Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2021) 10 SCC 598 . The Apex Court in the above decision have given certain guidelines regarding the procedure and practices relating to investigation, prosecution, trial, evidence etc. to be followed in criminal trial. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Apex Court specifically stated that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but not relied on should also be furnished to the accused. It is specifically observed that if the accused is of the view that such materials are necessary to be produced for a proper and just trial, she or he may seek appropriate orders under Cr.P.C. for their production during the trial in the interest of justice. Thus, going by the said decision, the accused has every right to ask the investigating agency to produce the documents or objects which were seized at the time of investigation but were not made part of the final report. 7. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the order passed by the court below cannot be sustained. Accordingly Annexure I petition stands allowed. The Crl. M.C. is disposed of as above.