Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277 OF 2010
Deepu @ Deepak ... Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
1. The judgment dated 01.12.2008 passed by the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur: Bench Gwalior in Criminal
Revision No. 314 of 2007 confirming the order dated 12.03.2007
Signature Not Verified
th
passed by the XI Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, framing
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2018.12.17
12:19:22 IST
Reason:
charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under
1
2
Sections 394 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the
IPC’), and alternatively under Sections 302 and 397, IPC along
with Sections 25 (1B) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act in S.T. No.
156/99, is called in question in this appeal.
The First Information Report came to be lodged against
2.
three persons alleging the offence of murder and robbery. A
chargesheet was filed against seven persons, including the
accused. The Trial Court had discharged the appellant herein
initially, along with four other accused, however, the said order of
discharge of the appellant was recalled subsequently. The order
of recalling was confirmed by the High Court. The said order of
recalling came to be set aside by this Court on the ground that
there is no provision to review or recall the order under the Code
of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) by the Criminal
Court/Sessions Court. The earlier orders, as mentioned supra,
including the order passed by this Court, reveal that the initial
order of discharge passed by the Trial Court was without
reference to the supplementary chargesheet/additional charge
sheet filed against the appellant, which contained ample material
against the appellant to frame charges. The supplementary
chargesheet also included material relating to the recovery of a
2
3
pistol used for the commission of the offence by the appellant, at
the instance of the appellant.
3. During the trial of the other two accused (since the
appellant was discharged at an earlier point of time), an
application came to be filed on behalf of the prosecution under
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to the appellant based on
the material on record. The Trial Court, being satisfied about the
existence of ample material against the appellant to proceed
against him on the basis of the supplementary chargesheet, Test
Identification Parade, Forensic Science Laboratory report and
statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C., as well as depositions of witnesses, issued summons to
the appellant herein and thereafter proceeded to frame charges
against him. As mentioned supra, the said order came to be
confirmed by the High Court.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
4.
orders, inasmuch as the Trial Court by duly applying its judicial
mind to the facts of the case rightly concluded that it is a fit case
to proceed against the appellant in the sessions case. Since, at
an earlier point of time the supplementary chargesheet was
ignored by the Trial Court while discharging the appellant, there
3
4
is no bar to proceed against him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based
on the supplementary chargesheet, that too when sufficient
material is brought on record against him during the course of
trial. The supplementary chargesheet shows that the
identification parade was held, wherein the appellant was
identified by the witnesses as one of the accused who
participated in the incident of murder. The combined effect of
the FSL reports as well as the statements of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as found in the supplementary
chargesheet and depositions of PW5 (Sreshtha), PW6 (Mukul
Gupta), PW7 (Shyam Bihari), PW8 (Rajaram) and PW12 (N. K.
Upadhyaya) fully justifies the orders of the Trial Court and the
High Court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The Courts on facts
have correctly found that the material is sufficient, prima facie, to
proceed against the appellant for the offence which he appears to
have committed, and we concur with their decision.
It is relevant to note the following observations of the
5.
judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the
case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92,
which read thus:
4
5
“…….. The court should keep in mind that the
witness when giving evidence against the
person so discharged, is not doing so merely to
seek revenge or is naming him at the behest of
someone or for such other extraneous
considerations. The court has to be
circumspect in treating such evidence and try
to separate the chaff from the grain. If after
such careful examination of the evidence, the
court is of the opinion that there does exist
evidence to proceed against the person so
discharged, it may take steps but only in
accordance with Section 398 Cr.P.C. without
resorting to the provision of Section 319
Cr.P.C. directly.”
In the matter on hand, the Sessions Court, as aforementioned,
has found that the earlier order of discharge was without
reference to the supplementary chargesheet, though the
supplementary chargesheet was in existence then. Only after
applying its mind judiciously to the facts of the case and on
verifying the details of the supplementary chargesheet as well as
other material on record, mentioned supra, the Trial Court
concluded that it is a fit case to proceed against the
accused/appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The said order is confirmed by the High Court. The
procedure as contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as well as
5
6
the procedure as laid down by this Court in Hardeep Singh
(supra) is fully satisfied by the Trial Court .
6. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no reason to
interfere with the impugned orders. The appeal fails and is
accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that any
observation made by the Trial Court, the High Court as well as
this Court during the course of this order will not come in the
way of the Trial Court to decide the sessions case on merits and
in accordance with law.
…………………………………….….J.
[N.V. RAMANA]
………………………………………..J.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
New Delhi;
December 14, 2018.
6