SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE SHEET AT LATER STAGE AND DIRECTING FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS A VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF LAW

 

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed a Judgment dated 30.09.2024 in the matter of K. Vadivel vs. K. Shanthi & Ors, Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Criminal) No. 4360 of 2022 that a distinction must be made between cases with genuine grounds to delay proceedings and those without such grounds, calling this case a classic example of the latter. Allowing the Appeal, the Apex Court set aside the High Court’s decision, stating that it provided no valid justification for ordering further investigation.

 

FACTS:

1)  That the Appeal mentioned above, was filed before the Apex Court by one, K Vadivel (Appellant) against one, K. Shanthi and Ors. (Respondents) who challenged the validity of the Judgment dated 30.04.2021, passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (High Court) in Criminal R.C. (MD) No.533 of 2020, whereby the High Court through a brief Order, directed further investigation in the case long after final arguments had been concluded in the Trial Court on 19.10.2019. Further, the Aggrieved Accused approached the Apex Court on the ground that the direction was unjustified in law, especially since the deceased’s wife had previously attempted to summon certain Witnesses under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) (Power to summon material witness or examine person present), which was rejected by both the Trial Court and the High Court as early as December 2019.

2) On 31.03.2013, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged under Crime No. 27 of 2013 based on a Complaint by Padikasu (PW-1). He stated that while he and the deceased Kumar were out for a morning walk around 5:00 AM, three individuals alighted from a car with weapons and hacked Kumar to death.

3) On 11.07.2013, the Police filed a final report, naming eight individuals, including the Appellant, as the Accused.

4) On 20.12.2016, Padikasu was examined in Court. He testified that two persons, including Ganapathy, alighted from the car with a sickle. However, he denied witnessing the actual hacking and only mentioned calling the deceased’s family after the incident. PW-1 was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Prosecution, where he denied identifying the attackers.

5) On 18.03.2017, Shanthi corroborated that she had received a phone call from PW-1 informing her about the incident. She identified the attackers as Ganapathy, Vadivel (Appellant), and others, who allegedly attacked her husband with weapons. Her brothers-in-law and other family members accompanied her to the crime scene.

6) On 25.07.2019, Padikasu was recalled for cross-examination at the request of A1 and A2. During this testimony, he contradicted his earlier statements and claimed that the Police coerced him into naming A1 Ganapathy as being present at the crime scene.

7) On 22.10.2019, after final arguments were concluded in the Trial Court on 19.10.2019, Shanthi filed a Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon additional Witnesses, including her son, brother and others. She argued that these witnesses would provide crucial evidence, including information about a mobile phone recovered at the crime scene. The Trial Court dismissed this Petition on 29.11.2019, citing the long delay and the fact that no such evidence had been mentioned earlier during the investigation or trial. Subsequently, Shanti appealed the aforementioned Order of the Trial Court, but the Appeal was once again rejected by the High Court.

8) Further, in January 2020, Shanthi filed a fresh Application for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., arguing that key witnesses had not been examined by the investigating officer, and the investigation had been inadequate. She sought the re-examination of witnesses, including individuals previously mentioned in her Section 311 petition.

TRIAL COURT:

The Trial Court noted that Shanthi (PW-2) had already been examined on 18.03.2017 and had not mentioned the new facts she later raised in her Application for further investigation.

The Court observed that the final report had been filed on 11.07.2013, and Shanthi did not file any Petition for further investigation at that time.

The Court held that the Application for further investigation was filed only in January 2020, long after the Trial had progressed, and was intended to delay the proceedings.

The Court emphasized that further investigation cannot be ordered after cognizance has been taken, unless initiated by the investigating agency, and rejected the Application for being a misuse of the legal process.

The Court dismissed the Section 311 Cr.P.C. Petition on 29.11.2019, stating that the power to summon witnesses must be used judiciously, not arbitrarily, and Shanthi’s request lacked merit.

 

HIGH COURT:

The High Court observed that Shanthi’s earlier Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed because she had not requested further investigation at that time.

The High Court stated that denying the relief of further investigation would prejudice Shanthi’s case, especially since PW-1 (Padikasu) had turned hostile during the Trial.

The High Court highlighted that the case involved murder and emphasized that further investigation was necessary to ensure justice.

Based on these observations, the High Court set aside the Trial Court’s Order of 23.07.2020, which had rejected Shanthi’s Petition for further investigation, and directed the investigating agency to conduct further investigation. It also ordered that the Additional Charge Sheet be filed within three months and the Trial Court to proceed afresh based on this Charge Sheet.

 

SUPREME COURT:

Aggrieved by the High Court Order dated 30-04-2021, the Appellants filed Special Leave Petition No.4360 of 2022 before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court vide Order dated 30.09.2024 held as follows:

 

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court was, on the facts of the case, justified in ordering

further investigation.

 

OBSERVATIONS:

The Supreme Court, in its detailed observation, noted that the Application for further investigation was filed by Shanthi (PW-2) at a very late stage of the Trial, in January 2020, although the FIR was lodged in March 2013, and the Charge Sheet was submitted in July 2013. The Bench highlighted that Shanthi had been examined as a witness in March 2017, and no new evidence was introduced at the time that could justify her request for further investigation. The Court found this delay in seeking further investigation unreasonable, suggesting that it was an attempt to delay the Trial rather than pursue justice.

The Court also emphasized that Shanthi had previously filed a Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon additional witnesses, which was dismissed by the Trial Court in November 2019 and her challenge to that dismissal was rejected by the High Court in December 2019. The Supreme Court found that the grounds raised in her Application for further investigation were essentially the same as those dismissed the Petition under Section 311, and no new evidence or circumstances had been presented to warrant reopening the investigation.

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for allowing the further investigation without providing adequate legal reasoning. The High Court’s decision was based on the fact that PW-1 had turned hostile and that it was a murder case, but the Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to apply the legal principles governing further investigation. Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that allowing further investigation at such a late stage, after the Accused had already concluded oral and written arguments, would unfairly prejudice the Accused.

 

CONCLUSION:

Based on the aforementioned facts, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s Order dated 30.04.2021 for further investigation. The Apex Court held that the Additional Charge Sheet prepared was based on the same facts and investigation should not be admitted. The Apex Court stressed the importance of delivering timely justice and pointed out that this case had already been delayed by over eleven years. It directed the Trial Court to complete the proceedings within eight weeks, ensuring that justice is served without further unnecessary delays.

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer