Supreme Court Upholds Framing of Charges Under Section 319 CrPC: Deepu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 1092

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a person, once discharged by a trial court, be summoned again based on a supplementary charge sheet? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a criminal appeal concerning charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The core issue was whether the trial court was correct in invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to proceed against an individual who was previously discharged, but against whom a supplementary charge sheet was filed. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the opinion authored by Justice Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case began with a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against three individuals for murder and robbery. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against seven people, including the appellant, Deepu @ Deepak. The Trial Court initially discharged Deepu and four other accused. However, this discharge order was later recalled. The High Court upheld the recall order. The Supreme Court, however, set aside the recall order, stating that a criminal court cannot review or recall its own order under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It was noted that the initial discharge order was made without considering a supplementary charge sheet that contained significant evidence against Deepu, including the recovery of a pistol used in the crime, based on his information.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

During the trial of the other accused, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon Deepu based on the evidence on record. The Trial Court, after examining the supplementary charge sheet, the Test Identification Parade, the Forensic Science Laboratory report, statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC, and depositions of witnesses, found sufficient grounds to proceed against Deepu. Consequently, the Trial Court issued summons to Deepu and framed charges against him. The High Court upheld this order. The Supreme Court noted that the initial discharge of the appellant was without reference to the supplementary charge sheet, which contained ample material to frame charges against him.

Legal Framework

The appellant was charged under the following provisions:

• Sections 394 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections deal with offences related to voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery and offences relating to house-breaking by night, respectively.
• Sections 302 and 397 of the IPC: These sections deal with murder and robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, respectively.
• Sections 25 (1B) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act: These sections relate to offences involving possession and use of prohibited arms.
• Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section empowers a court to proceed against any person who appears to be guilty of an offense, based on the evidence presented during a trial, even if that person was not initially an accused.

Arguments

The primary contention of the appellant was that once he was discharged by the Trial Court, he could not be summoned again under Section 319 of the CrPC. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the initial discharge was flawed as it did not consider the supplementary charge sheet, which contained substantial evidence against the appellant.

The prosecution relied on the following:

• The supplementary charge sheet, which included material relating to the recovery of a pistol used in the commission of the offence by the appellant, at the instance of the appellant.
• The Test Identification Parade, where the appellant was identified by witnesses.
• The Forensic Science Laboratory report.
• Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.
• Depositions of witnesses, specifically PW5 (Sreshtha), PW6 (Mukul Gupta), PW7 (Shyam Bihari), PW8 (Rajaram) and PW12 (N. K. Upadhyaya).

The innovativeness of the prosecution’s argument lies in its emphasis on the fact that the initial discharge order was passed without considering the supplementary charge sheet, which contained significant evidence against the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Trial Court was justified in proceeding against the appellant under Section 319 of the CrPC based on the supplementary charge sheet, given that the appellant was previously discharged. The sub-issue was whether the Trial Court could ignore the initial discharge order because the supplementary charge sheet was not considered at that point.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

• Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize the need for caution when considering evidence against a previously discharged person. However, the Court also noted that the procedure laid down in this case was fully satisfied by the Trial Court in the present matter.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the initial discharge order was passed without considering the supplementary charge sheet. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court had applied its mind judiciously to the facts of the case and the material on record before proceeding against the appellant under Section 319 of the CrPC. The supplementary charge sheet, the Test Identification Parade, the Forensic Science Laboratory report, and the statements of witnesses all played a crucial role in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A Trial Court can proceed against a previously discharged person under Section 319 of the CrPC if a supplementary charge sheet containing substantial evidence is filed and was not considered during the initial discharge.
• The court must apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case and the material on record before invoking Section 319 of the CrPC.
• The procedure laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab must be followed when proceeding against a previously discharged person.
• This judgment clarifies that an initial discharge order is not a bar to proceeding against the same person if new and significant evidence comes to light.

Directions

The Supreme Court clarified that any observations made by the Trial Court, the High Court, or the Supreme Court during the course of this order will not influence the Trial Court’s decision on the merits of the sessions case, which must be decided in accordance with the law.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a Trial Court can proceed against a person under Section 319 of the CrPC based on a supplementary charge sheet, even if that person was previously discharged, provided that the initial discharge was without reference to the supplementary charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet contains sufficient material to frame charges. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural technicalities should not hinder the pursuit of justice when substantial evidence is available.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to confirm the Trial Court’s order to proceed against the appellant under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the initial discharge order was flawed as it did not consider the supplementary charge sheet, which contained sufficient evidence to frame charges against the appellant. This judgment clarifies the scope of Section 319 of the CrPC and ensures that individuals who may be involved in a crime are not shielded by procedural oversights.