Section 95 BNSS| Postal Authority In Modern Day Context Must Be Read To Mean & Include Telecom Authority: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court observed that, for the purpose of Section 95 of BNSS, the postal authority in modern-day context must be read to mean and include the telecom authority.
The Court clarified that the trial Court can direct any relevant document or electronic data which was not in the custody of an accused but with a third party, i.e. postal authority or the telegraph/telecom authority/service provider to be produced in the court as a piece of evidence.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga held, "In the modern day context, postal authority is to be read in a way so as to mean and include even the telecom authority which is a similar service provider qua the electronic data it preserves on behalf of and, delivers, to its consumers. Accordingly, any document or electronic data or a thing, which is not in custody of the accused but with the third party, i.e. postal authority or the telegraph/telecom authority/service provider, but, at the same time, it is relevant for the purpose of the pending trial can be directed by the trial court to be produced in the court as a piece of evidence."
Advocate Siddharth Karwasra appeared for the petitioner, while the respondent was represented by Public Prosecutor Vikram Rajpurohit.
The petitioner had filed an application under Section 94 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, requesting call details of witnesses including their locations to be relied upon at the appropriate stage at the time of evidence. However, the Trial Court rejected the petition.
The petitioner submitted that the trial court had dismissed the application only on the ground that Section 94 of the BNSS cannot be invoked for validating the witnesses' statements through call details and failed to consider the fact that their call details and location details were necessary to be produced.
The Court explained that Section 94 of the BNSS could be invoked only either at the instance of the Court or the officer in-charge of the police station, who in a given situation, may consider any document to be produced for the benefit of the Court and thus it was not open for the accused to invoke the same. The Bench stated that the trial court had technically not committed any irregularity in law in dismissing the application filed under Section 94 of the BNSS.
However, for "securing the ends of justice," the Court noted that the petitioner was an under-trial being accused of a serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC. "If he is held guilty, the consequence thereof may result into death penalty and/or conviction for life imprisonment. Any negligence or dereliction in adducing of the evidence, needless to say, will result in miscarriage of justice and severely jeopardize the defence of the accused," the Court observed.
The Court stated that Section 95 of the BNSS allowed courts to direct service providers to produce and retain the required records even before the defense stage, ensuring that the documents were available when needed.
"Procedural rules exist to facilitate justice, not to hinder it. If strict adherence to procedural rules leads to the destruction of evidence and deprives the accused of a fair chance to defend themselves, the court should exercise its discretion to deviate from the norm. The court should use its powers to ensure that procedural delays do not result in an injustice. Allowing the preservation of electronic records before they are lost is essential for procedural fairness and the integrity of the judicial process," the Court observed.
"Personal liberty includes the right to defend oneself in a criminal prosecution. Any deprivation of the accused's ability to present crucial evidence, such as call details and location records, would constitute a violation of this fundamental right. The prosecution is expected to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarly, the accused must be given every reasonable opportunity to contest the evidence and present their defense", the Court said.
"Courts are duty-bound to avoid miscarriage of justice. Allowing key evidence to be lost due to procedural delays would also result in an unfair trial, which could lead to a wrongful conviction or harsher punishment (including life imprisonment or even the death penalty in this case). By not securing crucial evidence for the defense (which is in the possession of a third party), the court would inadvertently tip the balance in favor of the prosecution, thus creating a disparity which must be obviated", the Court observed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Case Title: Mala Ram v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:36831)
Click here to read/download Order:
