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
These observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2010 titled as Deepu @Deepak versus State of Madya Pradesh.
Earlier during the trial of the of the case,, an application came to be filed on behalf of the prosecution under
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to Deepak Kumar, the appellant on the basis of the material on record. The Trial Court, after satisfying itself 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. The said orders were confirmed by the High Court.
The Bench referred to the case of Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab to observe that the trial Court fully satisfied the procedure as contemplated under section 319 Cr.P.C. as well as the procedure as laid down by this Court in Hardeep Singh’s case. The following is the para referred to from the case of Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab :
“……..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.”