After giving due consideration to the issue at hand, we find
that the impugned order needs interference. The Court at the
outset, would make it clear that in principle, there is no quarrel
to the proposition that the Trial Court is within its powers to
alter the charge or to frame alternative charges. Further, the High
Court also has the power to direct for fresh consideration. In the
present case, we find that the manner in which the exercise has
been conducted is not in accordance with law. After the matter
being remanded by the High Court, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to form a satisfaction of its own with regard to applicability of Section 394 of the IPC independently, based on the materials produced either by the complainant or by the defence and from the investigating agency or in the alternative to conduct the inquiry of its own. In the present case, when the allegation was that witnesses had made certain statements before the Police, which was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”), it was the duty of the prosecution to produce all such statements to the Court, which was not done. Then obviously, the Trial Court was required to call upon the Police to produce the entire case diary recording the complete statements of all the witnesses. Thereafter, upon perusing the same, especially, the portions which had not been forwarded to the Court earlier, the Trial Court could have formed an independent opinion as to whether ingredients of various Sections including Section 394 of the IPC were made out. This has not happened. In fact, only on the basis of affidavits of witnesses filed along with the petition on behalf of the complainant, the Court has taken cognizance under Section 394 of the IPC. We do not approve of such exercise in the manner it has been done. {Para 8}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6904 of 2025)
DEEPAK YADAV AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Dated: 17th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order dated
11.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Application under Section 482 No.21222 of 2024, by which the High
Court has refused to interfere in the order dated 27.07.2023 passed
by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Special Case No.489 of
2018 where the Court has added Section 394 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”) in the charges framed against the
appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that initially,
the FIR was registered under Sections 394, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of
the IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,
the “1989 Act”). However, the Police upon full
inquiry/investigation submitted the charge sheet under Sections
452, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(D) of the
1989 Act where, Section 394 of the IPC was omitted. It was
submitted that the complainant-respondent no.2 had filed an
application before the Trial Court praying for addition of Charge
against the appellants under Section 394 of the IPC also. The same
was rejected and charges were framed under Sections other than
Section 394 of the IPC. This led to the complainant to move before
the High Court and the High Court had disposed of the matter with
liberty to the complainant to file an application before the Trial
Court for leading evidence and filing documents in support of his
contention. In the second round also, the Trial Court did not frame
charge under Section 394 of the IPC which again, prompted the
complainant to move before the High Court and the High Court again
remanded the matter to the Trial Court. It was submitted that in
the third round, the Trial Court has taken cognizance under Section
394 of the IPC also. Thereafter, the appellants moved before the
High Court against the said order, which was dismissed by the High
Court leading to filing of the present appeal.
5. It was submitted that the whole procedure adopted by the High
Court is totally unknown to law. It was further submitted that the
High Court while remanding the matter to the Trial Court, should
have remanded it with liberty to the Trial Court to go either for
fresh investigation by the Police or to conduct inquiry itself,
which has not been done and only based on the application which was supported by various affidavits filed on behalf of the complainant, cognizance has been taken. It was submitted that the requirement of law is not to take cognizance based only on the affidavits filed on
behalf of the complainant.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1-State submitted that the
Police after due investigation and based on the statement of
various witnesses had not found the matter covered under Section
394 of the IPC and thus consciously, Section 394 of the IPC was not
included in the charge sheet.
7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2-complainant submitted that
the FIR is of the year 2017 and still, it is at the stage of
framing of charge which shows that there are dilatory tactics on
the part of the accused-appellants. It was further submitted that
initially, when the complainant along with her two sons went to the
Police Station for lodging FIR, both the sons of the complainant
were beaten up and at the intervention of the Superintendent of
Police, the FIR was lodged and thus, the investigation besides
being one sided and motivated, even materials which had come during
investigation, were not fully put up before the Court and this
resulted in the Court not taking cognizance under Section 394 of
the IPC whereas, the fact is that witnesses had supported the
offence which would clearly, fall in the ambit of Section 394 of
the IPC.
8. After giving due consideration to the issue at hand, we find
that the impugned order needs interference. The Court at the
outset, would make it clear that in principle, there is no quarrel
to the proposition that the Trial Court is within its powers to
alter the charge or to frame alternative charges. Further, the High
Court also has the power to direct for fresh consideration. In the
present case, we find that the manner in which the exercise has
been conducted is not in accordance with law. After the matter
being remanded by the High Court, it was incumbent upon the Trial
Court to form a satisfaction of its own with regard to
applicability of Section 394 of the IPC independently, based on the
materials produced either by the complainant or by the defence and
from the investigating agency or in the alternative to conduct the
inquiry of its own. In the present case, when the allegation was
that witnesses had made certain statements before the Police, which
was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”), it was the duty of the prosecution
to produce all such statements to the Court, which was not done.
Then obviously, the Trial Court was required to call upon the
Police to produce the entire case diary recording the complete
statements of all the witnesses. Thereafter, upon perusing the
same, especially, the portions which had not been forwarded to the
Court earlier, the Trial Court could have formed an independent
opinion as to whether ingredients of various Sections including
Section 394 of the IPC were made out. This has not happened.
In fact, only on the basis of affidavits of witnesses filed along
with the petition on behalf of the complainant, the Court has taken
cognizance under Section 394 of the IPC. We do not approve of such
exercise in the manner it has been done.
9. For reasons aforesaid, the order taking cognizance against the
appellants is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court,
which is directed to call upon the Police to produce the entire
investigation and statements of the witnesses which has been
recorded. Further, if the Police has missed out recording the
statement of any of the witnesses, the affidavits of the witnesses
as furnished by the complainant shall be forwarded to the Police.
The Police shall then, carry further investigation and submit a
further report to the concerned Court. The same be done within six
weeks from today. Based upon that, the Court after hearing all
concerned, shall proceed to the stage of taking cognizance and
thereafter, framing of charge and proceeding with the trial, as the
case may be. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter.
10. Learned counsel for respondent no.1-State shall communicate to
the Superintendent of Police, District Jhansi that investigation
should be free, impartial and there should not be any suppression
of any material which has come across during the investigation and
truthfully, the same shall be placed. We make it clear that the
Superintendent of Police, District Jhansi, shall be personally
liable if in future, it transpires that any material which has come
during investigation, was withheld from the concerned Court.
11. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in the
aforementioned terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
17th SEPTEMBER, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment