Rajasthan High Court Partly Allows Accused's Plea To Summon Document On POCSO Victim's Age, Says No Delay In Filing S.91 CrPC Plea

Rajasthan High Court has partly allowed a POCSO accused's plea challenging a trial court order which had rejected his application under Section 91 CrPC seeking production of the complainant's admission ticket issued by the Community Health Centre to determine her age.

The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the cross-examination with regard to the age of the victim has already been completed by the accused.

Section 91(Summons to produce document or other thing) CrPC empowered the courts and police officers to summon production of any documents or object which was considered necessary for any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under CrPC.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that an accused could not be deprived of the opportunity of a fair trial. It said:

"This fact is not in dispute that when the statements of the victim were recorded before Trial Court on 29.02.2021, this fact was not within the knowledge of the petitioner that the victim has given birth to a child at the Community Health Centre, Phagi, District Jaipur where she has mentioned her age as nineteen years. This fact came into his notice at a later stage. Thereafter, an application was submitted by him to seek information regarding the birth of the child of the prosecutrix from the Community Health Centre, Phagi under the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 and the aforesaid information was provided to the petitioner by the Primary Health Officer, Community Health Centre, Phagi on 17.01.2023.

Immediately thereafter, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C for summoning the admission ticket of the victim from the Community Health Centre, Phagi, Jaipur. In the considered opinion of this Court, no delay has been caused by the petitioner in filing the aforesaid application. The Court below has rejected the application not on merits but on a technical count that the statements of the victims of the prosecutrix have already been recorded and sufficient time was granted to the petitioner for cross-examination with regard to the contention on the age of the prosecutrix".

For context, the petitioner was an accused under POCSO, and was alleging that the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident was above 18 years.

The prosecutrix had given birth to a child at a community centre. When the petitioner came to know about this information, he filed an RTI to sought information about the admission ticket of the prosecutrix issued by the community centre.

Allegedly, it revealed that the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time was above 18 years, and immediately thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 91, CrPC.

After hearing the contention, the Court highlighted, the fact that the victim had given birth at the community centre was not within the petitioner's knowledge earlier. As soon as he got that knowledge, the RTI was filed, followed by the application under Section 91, CrPC.

In this light, the Court held that there was no delay caused in filing the application.

"It is a settled proposition of law that an accused cannot be deprived of the opportunity of a fair trial, if any fact comes under the notice of the accused or the Court at a later stage, prior to the conclusion of the trial and if that fact is relevant for just decision of the case then opportunity should be provided to the accused to produce the subject document which could be relevant for just decision of the case.

The denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of any record, which is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act in criminal trial, would amount to miscarriage of justice. Section 91 Cr.P.C. helps in facilitating a fair and just resolution to the case by ensuring that relevant evidence is made available to the Court for making informed decisions and arrive at a just and fair outcome. It enables the Court to secure important documentary evidence that may be in possession of individuals or organization and helps prevent the destruction, tampering or loss of crucial documents, thereby maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The power under 91 Cr.P.C. must be exercised for production of such evidence, which would assist the Court in discovering the truth in the pursuit of justice," the court said.

It however said that the right of privacy of the police officials cannot be breached at the ipse dixit of the accused. Before any such order for production of call details/tower location is passed, the "accused is required to prove necessity and desirability of such evidence, which would be relevant to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused".

"As principles of natural justice are integral part of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, any denial of the best available evidence or effective and substantial hearing to accused in proving defence would amount to denial of free and fair trial," the court added.

Partly allowing the plea the court directed the trial court to summon the admission ticket from the Community Health Centre and allow the petitioner with last opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix on the aforesaid admission ticket.

Title: Ranjeet Raigar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 223

Click Here To Read/Download Order