Introduction
In a significant Judgment that reinforces the principle of procedural fairness in
criminal trials, the Supreme Court of India in Deepak Yadav and Another versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [SLP (Crl.) No.6904 of 2025] addressed a
critical question regarding the powers of Trial Courts to take cognizance of additional
charges based on private affidavits.
The Allahabad High Court had upheld a Trial Court’s decision to include Section 394
of the Indian Penal Code in the charges, despite this Section being absent from the
original police chargesheet. The Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
and Justice S.C. Sharma examined whether such a procedure was legally
sustainable and whether it violated established criminal procedure norms.
Case Background and Legal Context
The dispute arose when the Trial Court decided to take cognizance of offence under
Section 394 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt in committing or attempting to commit
robbery) based solely on affidavits submitted by private witnesses, without reference
to the investigation record. This approach raised fundamental questions about the
relationship between police investigation, judicial oversight and the rights of the
accused in criminal proceedings.
The case highlighted a common dilemma – what happens when complainants
believe that the police investigation is incomplete or biased and they seek judicial
intervention to ensure that all relevant charges are included? The Supreme Court’s
response to this question has far-reaching implications for criminal procedure across
India.
Arguments Presented by the Parties
The Petitioners argued that the Trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by
mechanically accepting private affidavits as sufficient grounds for adding charges
that the police had deliberately excluded after investigation. They further emphasized
that affidavits do not constitute part of the formal investigation process under the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and that accepting them as primary evidence
undermined statutory safeguards designed to ensure fair trials. They contended that
before taking cognizance of additional charges, the Trial Court should have
examined the complete case diary under Section 172 Cr.P.C., including witness
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
The Respondents defended the Trial Court’s approach by arguing that the affidavits
provided direct evidence of the commission of offences under Section 394 IPC. They
claimed that the police investigation was incomplete and biased and that excluding
this Section from the chargesheet amounted to suppression of material facts. The
Respondents maintained that courts have an overriding obligation to ensure that
justice is served and that no offender escapes prosecution due to inadequate
investigation. They argued that the Trial Court was justified in going beyond the
chargesheet to include charges supported by witness testimony, even if presented
through affidavits.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court emphasized that affidavits cannot substitute the statutory requirement of
recording statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during police investigation. When
allegations of suppressed evidence arise, Trial Courts must call for the entire case
diary and examine complete witness statements before forming independent
opinions about additional charges.
The Judgment highlighted that both the Trial Court and the Prosecution had
committed serious procedural errors. The Trial Court failed to examine investigation
records, while the Prosecution did not furnish complete witness statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. These omissions created a distorted picture and
deprived the Court of fair opportunity to assess the applicability of additional
charges.
The Court further categorically stated: "In fact, only on the basis of affidavits of
witnesses filed along with the petition on behalf of the complainant, the Court has
taken cognizance under Section 394 of the IPC. We do not approve of such exercise
in the manner it has been done".
This observation establishes that Trial Courts cannot mechanically add charges
based on private affidavits or applications. Instead, they must rely on proper
investigative materials or order further inquiry under established legal procedures.
Court’s Directions and Remedial Measures
The Supreme Court set aside the cognizance order and remanded the matter to the
Trial Court with specific directions designed to ensure procedural fairness. The Court
ordered the Trial Court to summon the entire case diary under Section 172 Cr.P.C.
and examine complete witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
In cases where police failed to record certain witness statements, the Court directed
that affidavits submitted by complainants be forwarded to police for proper recording
according to established procedures. The police were given six weeks to complete
supplementary investigation and submit fresh reports.
Significantly, the Court held the Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, personally liable
for any suppression of material discovered during investigation. This direction
underscores the Court’s emphasis on & free and impartial investigation and ensures
accountability at senior levels of police administration.
Conclusion
By emphasizing procedural fairness and proper investigation protocols, the Supreme
Court has reinforced fundamental principles that protect both Complainants and
Accused persons in criminal proceedings. The Judgment serves as a reminder that
while courts have discretionary powers to ensure justice, these powers must be
exercised within established legal frameworks. This ruling will undoubtedly influence
how trial courts approach cases involving allegations of incomplete investigation and
will serve as an important precedent for maintaining procedural integrity in criminal
trials across India.
YASH HARI DIXIT
Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about
various aspects of the law. Our latest Video titled “Legal Requirements for Indian
Startups | Complete Q&A 2025 | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at
the Link below: