Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The   First   Information   Report   came   to   be   lodged   against 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 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.  

4. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned 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 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.

5. It   is   relevant   to   note   the   following   observations   of   the 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:

“…….. 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 the   procedure   as   laid   down   by   this   Court   in  Hardeep   Singh (supra) is fully satisfied by the Trial Court.