Accused If Discharged Earlier Can Be Tried Later On Supplementary Charge Sheet

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

Procedure.

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.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *