The Rajasthan High Court has held that a plea under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents cannot be rejected by pre-judging their contents or evidentiary value, particularly where the documents have a reasonable nexus with a material issue in the trial.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that while the power under Section 91 CrPC must be exercised with due circumspection, it cannot be construed so restrictively as to defeat the provision's purpose. At the stage of deciding whether a document should be produced, the Court is required to examine whether it has a reasonable and discernible connection with a material fact, rather than assess its ultimate evidentiary worth.

Section 91 CrPC empowers a Court to order production of a document or other thing necessary or desirable for the purposes of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

The Court further held that where a document is capable of materially assisting the defence and its production is warranted in the facts of the case, such an opportunity cannot be denied on the basis of conjecture or assumption regarding what the document may or may not contain.

“The question whether the record ultimately establishes or supports the plea of the defence is to be determined upon its production and proof; its relevance cannot be negated merely on conjecture as to what the record may or may not contain.”

For context, the petitioner was accused in a POCSO case, in which an application was filed by him under Section 91 CrPC, seeking production of prosecutrix's records of Class I to Class VI, for determination of her age.

This application was dismissed by the trial court based on an assumption that such documents would merely contain marksheets, notebooks, etc, having no bearing on determination of her age.

After hearing the contentions, the Court held that since the question of age was material in the trial, any document which could have reasonably assisted in its determination, could not have been shut out at the threshold by treating the issue as inconsequential.

“There is a distinction between a document which is sought merely with a view to fishing out some material having no apparent connection with the controversy and a document which has been specifically identified and which, on the face of the record, may have a bearing upon a material issue arising for determination. In the former situation, the Court would certainly be justified in declining the prayer; however, in the latter, the production of such material cannot be refused merely because its ultimate evidentiary value is yet to be ascertained. Relevance and proof operate at different stages. The former is to be considered while deciding whether the document ought to be brought before the Court, whereas the latter is to be assessed after the document is produced and subjected to the process of law.”

The Court observed that instead of examining whether the sought documents were desirable or necessary for a just adjudication of the controversy, it went on to assess the evidentiary value of the documents, which amounted to placing the evidentiary burden on the defence at the stage of seeking production of the document.

“…expression “necessary or desirable” also indicates that the Court is required to adopt a practical and justice-oriented approach rather than a purely technical one be denied on the basis of conjecture or assumption regarding what the document may or may not contain…The application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of the earlier educational records could not have been dismissed by adopting a narrow or mechanical approach.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the educational institution was directed to be called upon to produce the relevant educational record of the prosecutrix pertaining to her schooling from Class I to Class VI.