Introduction:
In the case of Deepak Yadav and Another versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 966], the Supreme Court of India had to decide on a crucial issue concerning the manner in which trial courts can take cognizance of additional offences not mentioned in the chargesheet. The appeal arose from an unusual order of the Allahabad High Court which had upheld the decision of a trial court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (voluntarily causing hurt in committing or attempting to commit robbery) based solely on affidavits filed by private witnesses. The bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.C. Sharma examined whether the trial court was correct in exercising its powers in this manner and whether reliance on affidavits without independent satisfaction or reference to the investigation record was legally sustainable. The Court eventually set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the trial court, issuing significant directions to ensure fairness in criminal procedure.
Arguments by the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented by advocate Mr. Gaurav Yadav and his team, argued that the trial court had acted beyond its jurisdiction by mechanically taking cognizance of Section 394 IPC based solely on affidavits submitted by the complainant’s witnesses. They contended that once the police, after conducting a proper investigation, had excluded Section 394 from the chargesheet, the trial court could not have reintroduced it merely on the strength of private affidavits without independent inquiry. The defence further emphasized that affidavits do not form part of the investigation process under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and that reliance on such documents undermined the statutory safeguards for fair trial. They maintained that the trial court was obliged to call for the entire case diary under Section 172 Cr.P.C., which contains witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., before forming any satisfaction about the applicability of Section 394. The petitioners submitted that the cognizance order was passed in violation of procedural fairness and violated the accused’s right to defend themselves against properly investigated allegations.
Arguments by the Respondents:
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by advocate Mr. Arup Banerjee and his team, defended the decision of the trial court and the Allahabad High Court’s approval of the same. They argued that the affidavits filed by the witnesses provided direct evidence that the offence under Section 394 IPC had indeed been committed and that the omission of this section in the police chargesheet amounted to suppression of material facts. The respondents claimed that the complainant had raised repeated applications before the trial court precisely because the police had failed to discharge their duty of impartial investigation. According to them, the trial court, in the interest of justice, was right in taking cognizance of Section 394 IPC to ensure that no offender escaped prosecution merely because of an incomplete or biased investigation. They further contended that the High Court had rightly upheld the order as courts have an obligation to ensure that the truth is brought to light, even if it requires going beyond the chargesheet prepared by the investigating agency.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment:
After carefully examining the rival arguments, the Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the approach adopted by the trial court and subsequently upheld by the High Court. The bench observed that the trial court had acted improperly in taking cognizance of Section 394 IPC merely on the basis of affidavits furnished by private witnesses without calling for the investigation record or directing further inquiry. The Court emphasized that affidavits by themselves cannot substitute the statutory requirement of recording statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during police investigation. The Court highlighted that when the allegation was that the police had suppressed material evidence by not including Section 394 IPC in the chargesheet, it was incumbent upon the trial court to call for the entire case diary, including the complete statements of all witnesses, and then form an independent opinion on whether an additional offence was made out. The failure to do so, the Court said, amounted to a serious procedural irregularity.
The Supreme Court further pointed out that the prosecution had also erred by not furnishing the full statements of the complainant’s witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the court. This omission created a distorted picture and deprived the court of a fair opportunity to assess whether Section 394 IPC was applicable. The bench clarified that trial courts cannot mechanically add charges based on affidavits or applications by complainants but must instead rely on proper materials from investigation or order further inquiry under law.
The Court categorically held: “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.” It went on to say that trial courts must maintain fairness and impartiality in criminal proceedings by ensuring that all relevant investigation materials are placed before them.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the order of cognizance against the appellants and remanded the matter back to the trial court. It directed the trial court to summon the entire case diary from the police under Section 172 Cr.P.C. and to peruse the full statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. If the police had failed to record statements of certain witnesses, the court was directed to forward the affidavits submitted by the complainant to the police so that they could be recorded as per proper procedure. The police were given six weeks to complete this supplementary investigation and submit a fresh report. Only thereafter was the trial court authorized to form an independent opinion and take cognizance of offences.
In addition, the Supreme Court held that the Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, would be personally liable if any material uncovered during investigation was suppressed. The Court stressed the need for “free and impartial investigation” and ordered that all relevant materials be truthfully presented before the court. Importantly, the bench clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but was only concerned with correcting the improper procedure followed by the lower courts.
This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s insistence on maintaining procedural fairness in criminal trials and ensures that neither the complainant nor the accused is prejudiced by hasty or irregular orders of cognizance. It reinforces the principle that criminal courts must act on proper investigative records and cannot bypass established procedures in the name of expediency.