Order : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Quashing of an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, Churu, in Sessions Case No.20/2023, arising out of FIR No.43/2023 dated 14.04.2023, at Police Station Salasar, Churu for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 392, 34 of IPC is sought herein. 2. Relevant facts, as pleaded in the petition, is as follows:- 2.1 An FIR No. 43/2023 against the petitioner was lodged on April 14, 2023, at the Salasar police station in Churu. The complaint stated that the petitioner’s father, Shishupal, and another individual, Mukesh Kumar, were transporting wheat from Narwana, Haryana, to the FCI godown in Sujangarh. On April 13, 2023, the complainant received a call from the police informing him that Shishupal had been crushed under a vehicle and had died. Upon investigation, he alleged that Mukesh and one Richhpal had murdered Shishupal and concealed his body under the vehicle. Subsequently, a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and a co-accused on June 14, 2023, under sections 302, 392, and 34 of the IPC. 2.1 The petitioner filed a bail application on November 4, 2023. He also requested the trial Court for access to evidence collected during the investigation, including video recordings, photographs, call details, and location reports related to the case. The trial Court denied his request, asking the petitioner to specify the legal provisions supporting the application. 2.2. Following this, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 207 and 208 of the CrPC on December 4, 2023. However, the application was vide an the impugned order. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that according to Section 207 of the CrPC, it is mandatory to provide the accused with access to all documents and materials upon which the prosecution is based. The petitioner has not received any of the requested evidence, which is crucial for his defense. Petitioner deserves to be supplied the same by setting aside the impugned order, he would canvass. 5. The petitioner has not received any of the requested evidence, which is crucial for his defense. Petitioner deserves to be supplied the same by setting aside the impugned order, he would canvass. 5. At the very outset, it appears that the learned trial Court seems to have been rather swayed by the fact that when the copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the petitioner, the relevant information sought by him was provided with it. On the other hand, the petitioner claims that although the charge sheet was supplied along with other material, the evidence sought by him pursuant to the application was not included. 6. No attempt was made by the trial Court to ascertain whether the requested evidence was indeed supplied. Instead, the Court presumed, based on the signatures on the charge sheet, that the material had been provided to the petitioner’s counsel, including the documents appended to the charge sheet before the Court. 7. Aside above, the Constitution of India guarantees every accused the right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental aspect of natural justice under Article 21. Denying the petitioner access to crucial evidence violates his right to prepare an adequate defense, which can seriously prejudice his trial. The trial court's refusal to provide essential documents and materials, despite multiple requests, undermines the fairness of the proceedings and risks turning the trial into a miscarriage of justice. Fairness in trial and the availability of all relevant evidence are essential to ensure justice is done, especially in cases involving serious charges like murder. 8. Section 207 CrPC mandates the supply of all relevant documents and evidence relied upon by the prosecution to the accused. It is a statutory duty that ensures transparency and enables the accused to understand the charges and evidence against them. The trial court's refusal to grant access to the requested documents (e.g., video recordings, photographs, call details) is a direct violation of these procedural safeguards. Even though the charge sheet was supplied, the specific materials requested by the petitioner were not included. Therefore, the court's presumption that all necessary evidence was provided is unjustified. Failure to do so violates the principles of fair play and natural justice. The trial court must ensure that the accused is not denied access to evidence that could help him prove his innocence or contest the prosecution’s case effectively. 9. Therefore, the court's presumption that all necessary evidence was provided is unjustified. Failure to do so violates the principles of fair play and natural justice. The trial court must ensure that the accused is not denied access to evidence that could help him prove his innocence or contest the prosecution’s case effectively. 9. In criminal jurisprudence, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The denial of evidence directly hampers the petitioner’s ability to defend himself, especially in a case where the allegations are of such a serious nature. Without full access to the requested evidence, the petitioner’s right to challenge the prosecution's case and present exculpatory evidence is severely compromised. Supplying the requested evidence again, even if it is assumed that same was provided earlier, will not prejudice or harm the prosecution’s case but will instead ensure that the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is respected. 10. Speaking of relevancy of material sought by the petitioner, such as video recordings, photographs, and call details, they are crucial pieces of evidence. These could either corroborate the prosecution’s case or provide a counter-narrative that supports the defense. For example, call detail records and location reports could show whether the petitioner or other accused were present at the crime scene. By denying access to such evidence, the court is effectively denying the petitioner an opportunity to bring forward critical information that could prove his innocence. The right to effective cross-examination and presentation of defense evidence is enshrined in the CrPC and is necessary to prevent wrongful convictions. Supplying the requested evidence will not thus cause undue harm or prejudice to the prosecution’s case. On the contrary, it will ensure transparency in the process and instill public confidence in the judicial system. The prosecution already has its case prepared, and, therefore, sharing the evidence again will not create any disadvantages. It merely allows the petitioner to exercise his legal right to a proper defense. 11. Given that the petitioner is charged under Section 302 IPC (murder), the potential penalties are severe, including life imprisonment or even the death penalty. The petitioner should be allowed every opportunity to defend himself fully, especially in a case where any slight dereliction in evidence production may lead to irreversible consequences. The trial court should ensure that all relevant documents and evidence are made available to the defense to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice. 12. The petitioner should be allowed every opportunity to defend himself fully, especially in a case where any slight dereliction in evidence production may lead to irreversible consequences. The trial court should ensure that all relevant documents and evidence are made available to the defense to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice. 12. Considering the grave consequences of the non-supply of the requested information, I am of the view that without getting into a needless controversy over whether it was included with the charge sheet or not, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the requested evidence is supplied again to the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.04.2024 is set aside. The information sought in the application dated 04.12.2023, which was dismissed by the trial Court, should be supplied to the petitioner before proceeding further with the trial. 14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.