1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277 OF 2010

Deepu @ Deepak       ... Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh      ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

1.  The judgment dated 01.12.2008 passed by the High Court

of  Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur: Bench Gwalior in Criminal

Revision No. 314 of 2007 confirming the order dated 12.03.2007

passed by the XIth  Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, framing

charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under

1

2

Sections 394 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code (for short  ‘the

IPC’), and alternatively under Sections 302 and 397, IPC along

with Sections 25  (1B) (a)  and 27 of the  Arms Act in  S.T.  No.

156/99, is called in question in this appeal.  

2. The First Information  Report came to be lodged against

three  persons  alleging the  offence  of  murder  and robbery.  A

charge­sheet was filed against seven persons, including the

accused.   The Trial Court had discharged the appellant herein

initially, along with four other accused, however, the said order of

discharge of the appellant was recalled subsequently.  The order

of recalling was confirmed by the High Court.  The said order of

recalling came to be set aside by this Court on the ground that

there is no provision to review or recall the order under the Code

of  Criminal  Procedure (for  short ‘the  Cr.P.C.’)  by  the  Criminal

Court/Sessions Court.   The earlier orders, as mentioned supra,

including the order passed by this Court, reveal that the initial

order of discharge passed by the Trial Court was without

reference to the supplementary charge­sheet/additional charge­

sheet filed against the appellant, which contained ample material

against the appellant to frame charges.   The supplementary

charge­sheet also included material relating to the recovery of a

2

3

pistol used for the commission of the offence by the appellant, at

the instance of the appellant.   

3. During the trial of the other two accused (since the

appellant was discharged at an earlier point of time), an

application came to be filed on behalf of the prosecution under

Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to the appellant based on

the material on record.  The Trial Court, being satisfied about the

existence of ample  material against the appellant to proceed

against him on the basis of the supplementary charge­sheet, Test

Identification Parade, Forensic Science Laboratory report and

statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the

Cr.P.C., as well as depositions of witnesses, issued summons to

the appellant herein and thereafter proceeded to frame charges

against  him.  As  mentioned  supra, the said  order came to  be

confirmed by the High Court.   

4. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned

orders, inasmuch as the Trial Court by duly applying its judicial

mind to the facts of the case rightly concluded that it is a fit case

to proceed against the appellant in the sessions case.   Since, at

an earlier point of time the supplementary charge­sheet  was

ignored by the Trial Court while discharging the appellant, there

3

4

is no bar to proceed against him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based

on the supplementary charge­sheet, that too when sufficient

material is brought on record against him during the course of

trial.   The supplementary charge­sheet shows that the

identification parade was held, wherein the appellant was

identified by the witnesses as one of the accused who

participated in the incident of murder.   The combined effect of

the FSL reports as well as the statements of witnesses recorded

under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as found in the supplementary

charge­sheet and  depositions of PW5 (Sreshtha), PW6 (Mukul

Gupta),  PW7 (Shyam Bihari),  PW8  (Rajaram) and PW12 (N.  K.

Upadhyaya) fully justifies the orders of the Trial Court and the

High Court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.  The Courts on facts

have correctly found that the material is sufficient, prima facie, to

proceed against the appellant for the offence which he appears to

have committed, and we concur with their decision.

5. It is relevant to note the following observations of the

judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the

case  of  Hardeep  Singh  vs.  State of  Punjab,  (2014)  3  SCC 92,

which read thus:

4

5

“…….. The court should keep in mind that the witness when giving evidence against the person so discharged, is not doing so merely to seek revenge or is naming him at the behest of someone or for such other extraneous considerations. The court has to be circumspect in treating such evidence and try to separate the chaff from the grain.   If  after such careful examination of the evidence, the court is  of the  opinion that there  does exist evidence to proceed against the person so discharged, it may take steps but only in accordance  with  Section 398 Cr.P.C.  without resorting to the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C. directly.”  

In the matter on hand, the Sessions Court, as aforementioned,

has found that the earlier order of discharge was without

reference to the supplementary charge­sheet, though the

supplementary charge­sheet was in existence then.   Only after

applying its  mind  judiciously to the facts  of the  case  and on

verifying the details of the supplementary charge­sheet as well as

other material on record, mentioned supra, the Trial Court

concluded that it is a fit case to proceed against the

accused/appellant  under  Section 319 of the  Code of  Criminal

Procedure.  The said order is confirmed by the High Court.  The

procedure as contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as well as

5

6

the procedure as laid down  by this  Court in  Hardeep Singh

(supra) is fully satisfied by the Trial Court.   

6. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no reason to

interfere  with the impugned orders.   The appeal fails and is

accordingly dismissed.   However, we  make it clear that any

observation made by the Trial Court, the High Court as well as

this Court during the course of this order will not come in the

way of the Trial Court to decide the sessions case on merits and

in accordance with law.   

…………………………………….….J.     [N.V. RAMANA]

………………………………………..J. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]

New Delhi; December 14, 2018.  

6