In a significant ruling on the right of an accused to present relevant evidence, the Rajasthan High Court has partly modified a trial court order and directed the summoning of a hospital admission record that may have a bearing on a dispute regarding the age of the prosecutrix in a pending POCSO case.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that a fair trial requires courts to consider relevant evidence that comes to light during the course of proceedings, even if it is discovered at a later stage.
Background of the Case
The petitioner challenged an April 2023 order of the Special Judge (POCSO Cases), Jaipur, which had rejected his application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking production of certain records from the Community Health Centre, Phagi.
According to the petitioner, information obtained under the Right to Information Act indicated that when the prosecutrix was admitted to the health centre in June 2021 for childbirth, her age was recorded as 19 years. The defence argued that this document could be relevant to the issue of age in the ongoing trial.
The trial court had declined the request, noting that the application was moved at a late stage after cross-examination on the age issue had already been completed.
The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that school records showed the prosecutrix's date of birth as 15 January 2010 and argued that the application appeared to be an attempt to delay the trial.
After examining the record, the High Court noted that the information relating to the hospital admission was not within the petitioner’s knowledge when the prosecutrix’s evidence was originally recorded.
The Court found that the petitioner had sought the information through RTI and moved the application soon after receiving the records.
Rejecting the view that the application was delayed, the bench observed that the trial court had dismissed it “not on merits but on a technical count.”
Justice Dhand emphasized that an accused should not be deprived of a fair opportunity to defend himself if relevant facts emerge before the conclusion of the trial.
The Court observed,
“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.”
The bench further noted that denial of admissible evidence could result in a miscarriage of justice and highlighted that Section 91 CrPC exists to ensure that courts have access to relevant documentary material necessary for a just decision.
Allowing the petition in part, the Rajasthan High Court directed the trial court to summon the admission ticket from the Community Health Centre, Phagi, District Jaipur.
The Court also directed that the petitioner be given a final opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix concerning the admission record. Thereafter, the trial court was instructed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
With these directions, the impugned order dated 25 April 2023 was partly modified, and the criminal miscellaneous petition was disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Ranjeet Raigar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2586/2023
Judge: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Decision Date: 26 May 2026
