Supplementary Chargesheet Must Disclose Novel Evidence, No Cognizance Where No New Material Discovered By Further Investigation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that where no new material or evidence has been discovered by the further investigation, any cognizance taken by the Magistrate may be said to be in contravention to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that there has to be an extent of novelty in the report or Supplementary Chargesheet filed by the Investigating Agency, which leads to discovery of material or evidence in a manner which was not before the Court in the primary report or Chargesheet.

"Although further investigation has been distinguished from fresh investigation and reinvestigation, however, the provision for further investigation could not have been introduced solely to provide for reappreciation or reconsideration of the old or primary evidence and other material which was already on record before the Magistrate. There has to be an extent of novelty in the report or Supplementary Chargesheet filed by the Investigating Agency, which leads to discovery of material or evidence in a manner which was not before the Court in the primary report or Chargesheet," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a plea seeking setting aside of Supplementary Chargesheet dated 8th August, 2016 filed in an FIR in which charges were framed against the petitioner vide order dated 5th September, 2017 under sec. 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Supplementary Chargesheet dated 8th August, 2018, was filed after 2 years from the date of the incident and did not refer to any fresh material or evidence found in the course of investigation. It was argued that was no need for the Metropolitan Magistrate to direct the Investigating Officer to file a Supplementary Chargesheet, since, no new material was found.

It was contended that the Supplementary Chargesheet was filed in contravention to the provision under sec. 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. which permits further investigation and filing of a report based on the material found in such further investigation. It was added that new facts were brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer by any of the witnesses which led him to file the Supplementary Chargesheet.

The Court was of the view that the provision signifies that the investigation has to be furthered for there being a reason to believe that there exists certain material that would help establish the case of either of the parties.

"Therefore, for conducting a further investigation there needs to be a reason or scope for furtherance of investigation and finding of material which was otherwise not found, or if found not properly considered or investigated into. If upon such investigation fresh material is actually found and certain aspects of elements collected earlier were not investigated into, the concerned Police Officer/Investigating Officer may make a report to the Magistrate and bring on the record the facts newly discovered," the Court observed.

Referring to various Supreme Court judgments on the subject, the Court said that there needs to be some form of development or scope of development in a case which gives way for the Investigating Agency to look further into the matter.

"Where no such new material or evidence, whatsoever, has been discovered by the further investigation, any cognizance taken by the Magistrate may be said to be in contravention to the provision under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C."

The Court further observed that the Judge framing charges shall limit itself to the prima facie consideration of material and evidence on record. It added that the Judge need not be satisfied on the question of whether the trial, when conducted, will lead to the conviction or acquittal of the accused, but the consideration needs to be whether the accused is to be sent for trial at the first instance or not, based on the material on record.

"An investigation into the offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required, and is rather discouraged, at the stage of framing of charges and only the material prima facie establishing a case against or in favour of the accused is what is significant. Moreover, as per the requirement of Section 227 and 228, the learned Judge shall consider whether "sufficient grounds" exist or not and such consideration shall be supported by material on record," the Court added.

The Court observed that the Supplementary Chargesheet filed at a subsequent stage after the alleged further investigation, was not filed after having been found any fresh material or evidence, and therefore, neither was the further investigation proper and in accordance with the law nor the Supplementary Chargesheet is sustainable in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the Supplementary Chargesheet as well as the order on charge against the petitioner.

Case Title: SURENDER @ TANNU @ TANVA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 570

Click Here To Read Order