Rama Chaudhary vs State Of Bihar
| Case name : Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar |
| Equivalent citations : AIR 2009 SC 2308 |
| Date of judgement : 2 April, 2009 |
| Case no : S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 370 of 2009 |
| Case type : Criminal appeal |
| Petitioner : Rama Chaudhary |
| Respondent : State of Bihar |
| Bench : S.B. Sinha, P. Sathasivam |
| Statutes referred : Criminal Procedure code, Arms act, Indian penal code |
Facts of the case
Mrs Champa Devi, wife of Awadh Yadav, filed a complaint in the Police station against the appellant and others, under section 364 of IPC and section 27 of Arms act. The Police investigated the complaint and submitted a charge sheet before the court. In the said charge sheet, the prosecution has mentioned about examining 18 witnesses. But, at the end of the trial, the police submitted another charge sheet which included 8 new witnesses. The prosecution filed an application for examining these new witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet. The court accepted the application and issued summons to them. Following this, the appellant filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court. The High Court has dismissed the appeal upon finding no illegality or irregularity in the order. Thus, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the said order of the High Court.
Issues of the case
- Whether the police can conduct further investigation after the commencement of trial?
- Whether the court can summon new witnesses who are not mentioned in the first charge sheet for examination?
Arguments raised by the appellant
- The counsel for the appellant submitted that the police are not empowered to re-investigate a case after the commencement of the trial. According to section 173(8) CRPC the police may further investigate a case upon finding new evidence even after the submission of a charge sheet or after taking cognizance of the offense by the court. Here the Police re-investigated the case after the commencement of the trial.
- The counsel submitted that the respondent filed an application for further investigation with a malafide intention. The court has already commenced the trial and examined the witnesses. At this stage, the respondent filed an application for re-investigation to delay the disposal of the trial.
- He also submitted that since the trial was at the final stage, allowing the application of respondent to summon the new witnesses is prejudicial to the appellant.
Arguments raised by the respondent
- The counsel for the respondent submitted that the police may conduct further investigation on a case upon finding fresh evidence at any stage. The magistrate’s prior permission is also not necessary for further investigation on a case
- The counsel also submitted that section 231 CRPC confers the right upon the prosecution to produce any person as witness before the court . The prosecution may produce the witness even though the person was not examined by the police.
Judgement
The court dismissed the appeal upon finding no grounds for interference. The bench agreed with the high court order which dismissed the petition of the appellant. It was held that the prosecution may produce any witnesses even though they are not mentioned in the first charge sheet. The court may also summon these witnesses to find the truth.
Reason
The police have the power to conduct further investigation when they receive further evidence in a case. Further investigation means the continuation of an early investigation, not a fresh investigation or a re-investigation. However, the law prohibits a re-investigation on a case. After further investigation, the police should also submit a further report before the court.
In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat and Others, the court has observed that the ultimate aim of further investigation is to arrive at the truth. So, a further investigation should not be denied on the ground that it delays the disposal of the case. As the further investigation is valid, the materials obtained in the further investigation is also valid. Hence, the order of the court to summon the new witnesses added in the supplementary report is justifiable.
References
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/409332/
written by Poornima Rajasekaran a student of Government Law College, Thrissur, third semester
