The Supreme Court of India clarified the legal boundaries regarding the submission of supplementary charge-sheets by investigating officers. The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, ruled that a Judicial Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a supplementary charge-sheet submitted after further investigation if it does not present any fresh oral or documentary evidence. This ruling reverses the concurrent findings of both the High Court and the Trial Court.
The case in question, Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., revolved around the appellants-accused who sought discharge from a criminal case. The trial court had initially rejected their application and, upon the complainant’s request, allowed further investigation, leading to the submission of a supplementary charge-sheet. This charge-sheet added charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Passports Act against the appellants.
However, the Supreme Court found that the supplementary charge-sheet was based on the same evidence as the original charge-sheet, particularly a lab report from Truth Lab dated 15.07.2013. The Court noted,
“Instead, the supplementary charge-sheet relies upon the Truth Lab report dated 15.07.2013, obtained by Respondent No. 2, which was already available when the original charge-sheet was filed.”
This observation highlighted the lack of new evidence in the supplementary charge-sheet.
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court Upholds Press Freedom | Grants Anticipatory Bail to Journalist
Justice Surya Kant, in his judgment, emphasized the necessity of new evidence for a supplementary charge-sheet to be valid. He stated,
“The provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected and considered by the investigating agency while submitting the initial police report, known as the charge-sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC.”
The Court criticized the approach of the trial court and the investigating agency, describing their actions as mechanical and lacking in investigative rigor. The judgment further expressed concern over the reliance on a private laboratory report, stating,
“As observed earlier, the State FSL report does not substantiate these allegations. In our opinion, a paid report obtained from a private laboratory seems to be a frail, unreliable, unsafe, untrustworthy and imprudent form of evidence, unless supported by some other corroborative proof.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Questions Delay in Listing Adani Power Case: Seeking Accountability
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal by the appellant-accused, setting aside the orders of both the High Court and the trial court. This decision underscores the importance of fresh evidence in supplementary charge-sheets and reinforces the standards of investigation and judicial scrutiny in criminal proceedings.
Case Details:
Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No.335/ 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2877/2021)
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
