Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2050 (RAJ)

Lalit Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

2017-09-13

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. Accused-petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition aggrieved by order dated 03.04.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the Court has framed charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 306, 386 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 13.11.2010 Noratmal Agarwal submitted a written report to the effect that his son Mahendra has committed suicide. A suicide-note dated 10.11.2010 written in the writing of his son was recovered wherein the deceased has mentioned the name of the persons who were responsible for his death. Prior to the death of Mahendra, his father submitted two complaints dated 9.11.2010 and 10.11.2010 alleging that Mahaveer Singh and two other persons have threatened his son. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet on 14.2.2011 against Mohan, Ashutosh Kumar, Manoj and thereafter against Mahaveer Singh. 3. The trial Court by judgment dated 27.6.2013 acquitted two of the accused and convicted Mahaveer Singh and Mohan Meena. The present charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed on 20.11.2014. Vide impugned order the Court has framed charges under Sections 306 and 386 of IPC against the petitioner. 4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that when proceedings under section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C., 1973 are kept pending, without there being any further investigation fresh charge-sheet cannot be submitted. It is contended that in the present case there is no additional evidence collected by the police after filing of the earlier charge-sheet on 14.2.2011. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Nooruddin v. State of Rajasthan reported in (1999) 1 Crimes 493 , T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 and Amrutbhai Shambhubhui Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors reported in (2017) 4 SCC 177 . 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the revision petition. His contention is that at the time of filing of the earlier charge-sheet it was mentioned that the present petitioner is also an accused but since he was arrested after filing of the earlier charge-sheet the arrest memo tant-amounts to fresh evidence. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the revision petition. His contention is that at the time of filing of the earlier charge-sheet it was mentioned that the present petitioner is also an accused but since he was arrested after filing of the earlier charge-sheet the arrest memo tant-amounts to fresh evidence. It is also contended that the FSL report was received after filing of the charge-sheet on 14.2.2011 and as per the FSL report the suicide-note was found to be written by the deceased-Mahendra. 7. It is also contended that the subsequent charge-sheet has been filed under Section 173 (2) and not under section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C., 1973 Counsel for the State has drawn my attention to sub-clause (2) of sub-section (2) of section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 8. Counsel for the State has placed reliance on "Major Gurjinder Singh Benipal v. State of Punjab & Ors. and Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2016 SC 618 . 9. I have considered the contentions. 10. It is settled principle of law that the power of police officer to conduct further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., 1973 is unrestricted. "Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (supra)". 11. Rajasthan High Court in "Nooruddin v. State of Rajasthan (supra)" held that supplementary charge sheet can not be submitted without recording further evidence oral or documentary in respect of an offence. 12. Patna High Court in "Resham Lal Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihari" reported in 1981 (29) BLJR 647 held that there was no provision in the Cr.P.C. under which a supplementary charge-sheet can be submitted without further investigation and fresh evidence. A supplementary charge-sheet can be submitted only on the basis of such materials which could not come to the knowledge of the investigating officer during earlier investigation. 13. In the back drop of the legal position if we revert back to the facts of this case it is evident that Mahendra committed suicide on 11.11.2010. Police submitted charge-sheet on 14.2.2011 against three accused and later on against the fourth accused. In trial vide judgment dated 27.6.2013 trial court acquitted two and convicted two of the accused. By the time when the first charge-sheet was submitted i.e. 14.2.2011 the present petitioner was not arrested. However, in the charge-sheet the present petitioner was arrayed as an accused. Police submitted charge-sheet on 14.2.2011 against three accused and later on against the fourth accused. In trial vide judgment dated 27.6.2013 trial court acquitted two and convicted two of the accused. By the time when the first charge-sheet was submitted i.e. 14.2.2011 the present petitioner was not arrested. However, in the charge-sheet the present petitioner was arrayed as an accused. It was also mentioned in the charge-sheet that the suicide-note left by the deceased is to be referred to the FSL and a report is to be obtained to ascertain as to whether the same is in the handwriting of the deceased. 14. The police thereafter on 16.5.2011 sent the admitted handwriting of the deceased along-with the suicide-note to the FSL for examination. The FSL report was received on 13.9.2011. As per the report the suicide-note was in the handwriting of the deceased. The police arrested the petitioner on 8.10.2011. 15. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner that no further investigation has been conducted by the police before submitting the supplementary charge-sheet is thus factually incorrect. 16. The police had arrayed the present petitioner as an accused in the initial charge-sheet submitted under section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 and had kept the matter pending under section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C., 1973 as the accused were to be arrested and the FSL report was to be obtained and since some of the accused were in custody the challan was required to be filed within the mandatory period the challan was filed. 17. The sending of the suicide-note as well as the admitted handwriting of the deceased to the FSL obtaining the report from the FSL arresting the accused were all within the ambit of further investigation and hence, there was no bar for submitting a supplementary charge-sheet under section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C., 1973 It may be noted that the deceased in his suicide-note has named the present petitioner as one of the person who was responsible for his death. 18. The purpose of trial is to do the justice not only to the accused but also to the victim. 18. The purpose of trial is to do the justice not only to the accused but also to the victim. Since the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the initially charge-sheet and there was further evidence collected by the police the filing of supplementary charge-sheet and framing of charge against the petitioner cannot be said to be perverse and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner has no applicability. 19. No ground is made out for entertaining the revision petition. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed.