Ranjeet Raigar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2026
An accused cannot be deprived of a fair trial merely because relevant evidence comes to light at a later stage.
Judgement Details
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
3 August 2026
Judges
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner was facing prosecution under the POCSO Act and disputed the age of the prosecutrix.
-
The defence claimed that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident.
-
During the trial, the prosecutrix stated that she had given birth to a child at the Community Health Centre, Phagi, Jaipur.
-
The petitioner subsequently learned that the admission records at the health centre allegedly recorded the prosecutrix's age as 19 years.
-
He obtained information regarding the record through an RTI application.
-
After receiving the information, he promptly moved an application under Section 91 CrPC seeking production of the prosecutrix's admission ticket.
-
The Trial Court rejected the application, primarily because the prosecutrix had already been cross-examined regarding her age.
-
The petitioner challenged the rejection before the Rajasthan High Court.
Issues
-
Whether an accused can seek production of a relevant document under Section 91 CrPC after cross-examination of a prosecution witness has already been completed?
-
Whether subsequent discovery of material relating to the age of a POCSO prosecutrix justifies permitting further cross-examination?
-
Whether refusal to produce relevant documentary evidence can amount to a denial of the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21?
-
Whether the power under Section 91 CrPC can be exercised to secure documentary evidence necessary for determining the truth and just decision of the case?
Judgement
-
The Rajasthan High Court partly allowed the petition.
-
The Court held that the petitioner could not be denied a fair opportunity merely because the prosecutrix had already been cross-examined.
-
The relevant information regarding the prosecutrix's admission at the Community Health Centre had become known to the petitioner only at a later stage.
-
The petitioner acted promptly after obtaining the information through RTI.
-
Therefore, there was no unjustified delay in filing the Section 91 application.
-
The High Court directed the Trial Court to summon the admission ticket from the Community Health Centre, Phagi.
-
The petitioner was granted a last opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix specifically with regard to the contents of that document.
-
The Court emphasised that relevant evidence discovered during the pendency of trial should not ordinarily be excluded merely on technical grounds.
Held
-
Section 91 CrPC can be invoked to secure a document that is necessary or desirable for the just decision of the case.
-
The fact that cross-examination has already taken place does not automatically prevent further cross-examination when new and relevant evidence subsequently emerges.
-
Where the accused promptly acts after discovering new material, the application cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay.
-
Documentary evidence relevant to determining the age of a prosecutrix can be significant in a POCSO prosecution.
-
Denial of relevant and admissible evidence necessary for establishing the defence may result in miscarriage of justice.
-
The principles of natural justice and fair trial under Article 21 require that the accused be given a meaningful opportunity to present the defence.
-
However, Section 91 cannot be used merely on the accused's ipse dixit; the document sought must have demonstrable necessity and relevance to the case.
Analysis
-
The judgment reinforces the principle that fair trial is a substantive right, not merely a procedural formality.
-
The Court recognised that criminal trials are concerned with discovering the truth and therefore relevant evidence should not be excluded simply because it emerges after an earlier stage of examination.
-
The case is particularly significant in POCSO proceedings, where the age of the prosecutrix can determine the applicability of the statutory offence.
-
The Court accepted that the defence could not reasonably have questioned the Community Health Centre record earlier because the existence of that record was not within its knowledge at the time of the original cross-examination.
-
The decision therefore balances procedural efficiency against the accused's right to introduce material and subsequently discovered evidence.
-
Section 91 serves as an important mechanism for bringing documents in the possession of hospitals, institutions and other organisations before the court when those documents are genuinely relevant.
-
The Court nevertheless imposed an important limitation: the accused cannot demand private or official records merely on suspicion. Necessity and desirability must be demonstrated.
-
The judgment also highlights the importance of allowing the defence to test documentary evidence through effective cross-examination.
-
The High Court's direction for only a last opportunity to cross-examine on the specific admission ticket prevents unnecessary reopening of the entire prosecution evidence while protecting the accused's defence.
-
The ruling reflects the broader constitutional principle that procedural rules should not be applied so rigidly that they result in the exclusion of potentially decisive evidence.
-
Overall, the judgment strengthens the balance between efficient criminal trials, evidentiary fairness, the right of defence and the search for truth.