Chargesheet Must Contain Clear & Complete Entries, Specify Role Of Each Accused; Witness Statements Be Enclosed With It : Supreme Court

Taking note of the importance of the submission of a charge sheet to take cognizance of an offence by a magistrate, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 1) observed that the charge sheet must contain clear and complete entries of all columns to enable the court to understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file.

“Therefore, the investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. Statements under Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each of the accused persons.”, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said.

Deprecating the practice of filing chargesheet without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the offence or putting the relevant evidence on record, the court noted that “in some states, the charge sheets merely carry a reproduction of the details mentioned by the complainant in the First Information Report, and then proceed to state whether an offence is made out, or not made out, without any elucidation on the evidence and material relied upon.”

Opining that the charge sheet need not elaborately evaluate the evidence, as the process of evaluation is a matter of trial, however, the court advocated the inclusion of the substantiated reasons and grounds for an offence being made in the chargesheet which would act as a resource for the magistrate to evaluate whether there are sufficient grounds for taking cognizance, initiating proceedings, and then issuing notice, framing charges, etc.

“It is the police report which would enable the Magistrate to decide a course of action from the options available to him. The details of the offence and investigation are not supposed to be a comprehensive thesis of the prosecution case, but at the same time, must reflect a thorough investigation into the alleged offence. It is on the basis of this record that the court can take effective cognisance of the offence and proceed to issue process in terms of Section 190(1)(b) and Section 204 of the Code. In case of doubt or debate, or if no offence is made out, it is open to the Magistrate to exercise other options which are available to him.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

The court referred to the Judgment of H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, where it was held that the process of investigation generally consists of:

“1) proceeding to the concerned spot,

2) ascertainment of facts and circumstances,

3) discovery and arrest,

4)collection of evidence which includes examination of various persons, search of places and seizure of things, and

5) formation of an opinion on whether an offence is made out, and filing the chargesheet accordingly.”

Reliance was also placed on the recent Judgment of Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, where the court observed that police officers submitting the police report/chargesheet to the magistrate as per the State Police Manual shall abide by the particulars of Section 173 (2) and directed the officers in charge of every police station across the country to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. failing which it shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts i.e., where the chargesheet/police report is filed.

Also from the judgment- Non-Bailable Warrants Shouldn't Be Issued Unless Accused Charged With Heinous Crime Is Likely To Abscond Or Destroy Evidence: Supreme Court

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Mohd Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jamil Husain, Adv. Mr. Mushtaque Ahmad Khan, Adv. Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Aamir Dabas, Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, AOR Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, AOR Mr. Saad Sharif, Adv. Mr. Pravir Singh, Adv. Mr. Anurag Malik, Adv. Mr. S.N. Kalra, Adv.

Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G. for State of U.P. Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Adv. Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv. Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv. Ms. Saumya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR for State of U.P. Ms. Shubhali Pathak, Adv. Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv. Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR Mr. Dinesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Manu Parashar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR Mr. Gaurav Verma, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Dutt Gaur, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv.

Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment