9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether further investigation by the CBI should be directed. 2. Whether the investigation conducted by the State authorities was fair and adequate. 3. Whether the trial court has the power to alter charges based on new evidence. Summary: Issue 1: Whether further investigation by the CBI should be directed. The appellant sought further investigation by the CBI u/s 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the initial investigation was flawed. The Supreme Court acknowledged that proper and fair investigation is crucial, especially in cases with circumstantial evidence. However, the Court declined to direct further investigation by the CBI at this stage, noting that 47 witnesses had already been examined. The Court held that recourse to further investigation could be taken if a case is made out during the trial. Issue 2: Whether the investigation conducted by the State authorities was fair and adequate. The appellant argued that the investigation by the State authorities was inadequate and biased, pointing out several suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had not been treated fairly and that the investigation was not thorough. The Court criticized the CBI for supporting the impugned judgment without proper examination of the documents. The Court emphasized that the investigation must be methodical and in consonance with the ingredients of the offence. Issue 3: Whether the trial court has the power to alter charges based on new evidence. The Supreme Court highlighted that the trial court has the discretionary jurisdiction u/s 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to alter charges if sufficient evidence is brought on record. The Court also noted that the trial court can exercise its power u/s 311 and 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon additional evidence or witnesses if necessary. The Court directed that the appellant should be allowed to engage a lawyer to assist the public prosecutor and urged the State to appoint a competent public prosecutor if needed. Conclusion: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with directions to the trial court to consider the appellant's points and exercise its powers to ensure a fair trial. The Court declined to order further investigation by the CBI at this stage but left open the possibility for the trial court to take appropriate actions based on the evidence presented during the trial.
|
