LI Network
Published on: January 24, 2024 at 15:00 IST
The Supreme Court declared that it would be legally impermissible for a Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of a supplementary chargesheet submitted after further investigation if it lacks fresh oral or documentary evidence.
Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan overturned the concurrent findings of the High Court and Trial Court, emphasizing that the Investigating Officer, while filing a supplementary chargesheet under Section 178(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must include new evidence to support their conclusions. Failure to do so renders the supplementary chargesheet deficient in investigative rigor, failing to meet the requirements of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
The Court clarified that the provision for submitting a supplementary report implies the necessity of obtaining fresh oral or documentary evidence, rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected during the initial investigation leading to the filing of the chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC.
The case involved appellants-accused who sought discharge in a pending criminal case, a request denied by the trial court. Subsequently, the trial Court ordered further investigation upon the complainant’s application, allowing the police to submit a supplementary chargesheet, adding charges under various sections of the IPC and the Passports Act, 1967 against the appellants.
Despite the trial court rejecting the discharge application and the High Court dismissing the revision application, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the sustainability of charges framed based on the supplementary chargesheet following further investigation.
The Court observed that the Investigating Officer can submit a supplementary chargesheet only when additional evidence, oral or documentary, is acquired. However, in this case, the supplementary chargesheet relied on the same lab report used in the initial chargesheet.
The Court found no new evidence in the supplementary chargesheet, highlighting that the term ‘further investigation’ in Section 173(8) CrPC obligates the officer in charge to obtain new evidence before forwarding a supplementary report.
The Court criticized the trial court’s approach, stating that the order for further investigation resulted in a mechanical process without complying with the mandate of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Due to the absence of new evidence to support the conclusions in the supplementary report, the court ruled that a Judicial Magistrate is not obligated to take cognizance.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the reliance on a private laboratory report in the supplementary chargesheet, the court emphasized that such a report should be considered frail, unreliable, and unsafe unless corroborated by compelling evidence.
As the investigating agency failed to produce any substantive proof or material in compliance with the order for further investigation, the court set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and the trial court, allowing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused persons.
The judgment also touched upon the principle that mere cheating does not attract Section 420 IPC unless the accused dishonestly induces the cheated person to deliver property. The case details are as follows:
Case Details: Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.