Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court Order | Says Trial Court Cannot Take Cognizance of Robbery Charge Solely on Witness Affidavits
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that a Trial Court cannot invoke additional offences absent from the police chargesheet purely on the strength of affidavits submitted by private witnesses. The Court found fault with the Allahabad High Court for endorsing the Trial Court’s decision to add a charge under Section 394 of the IPC, which concerns inflicting hurt during robbery, without independently assessing the evidence or seeking further investigation. It set aside those orders and directed the Trial Court to base any future decision strictly on the official investigation record.
The case arose from a 2017 incident in Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, involving allegations of assault and robbery against the complainant, Smt. Ram Dhakeli, and her two sons. Initially, a First Information Report was registered under Sections 394, 452, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Following investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet omitting Section 394 IPC and invoking Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(D) of the 1989 Act. Dissatisfied, the complainant moved the Trial Court seeking addition of Section 394 IPC. The Trial Court initially rejected this plea. Subsequent challenges before the High Court led to remands, allowing the complainant to file evidence and documents to support inclusion of Section 394 IPC.
In the third round, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 394 IPC based primarily on affidavits of witnesses filed by the complainant. The accused, Deepak Yadav and Golu Chaurasiya, challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court dismissed their plea and upheld the Trial Court’s order.
The accused approached the Supreme Court, contending that the addition of Section 394 IPC based solely on affidavits was contrary to law. They argued that the Trial Court should have either relied on the investigation record or ordered further investigation before taking cognizance.
The State argued that the police had consciously omitted Section 394 IPC after reviewing the evidence. The complainant maintained that the police investigation was biased and incomplete and that witness statements supported inclusion of Section 394 IPC.
The dispute thus centered on whether a Trial Court can take cognizance of an additional offence not included in the chargesheet solely on the basis of witness affidavits, without examining the investigation record or ordering further investigation.
The Supreme Court observed that “in principle, there is no quarrel to the proposition that the Trial Court is within its powers to alter the charge or to frame alternative charges.” It recorded that “the manner in which the exercise has been conducted is not in accordance with law.”
The Bench stated that after remand by the High Court, “it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to form a satisfaction of its own with regard to applicability of Section 394 of the IPC independently, based on the materials produced either by the complainant or by the defence and from the investigating agency or in the alternative to conduct the inquiry of its own.”
The Court further observed that when the allegation involved statements by witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “it was the duty of the prosecution to produce all such statements to the Court, which was not done.”
The judgment recorded that “the Trial Court was required to call upon the Police to produce the entire case diary recording the complete statements of all the witnesses.”
The Bench noted that after examining the full record, including any portions not previously placed before the Court, the Trial Court could then have independently determined “whether ingredients of various Sections including Section 394 of the IPC were made out.”
Criticising the method adopted, the Court stated, “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.”
The Supreme directed: “the matter is remanded to the Trial Court, which is directed to call upon the Police to produce the entire investigation and statements of the witnesses which has been recorded.”
“If the Police has missed out recording the statement of any of the witnesses, the affidavits of the witnesses as furnished by the complainant shall be forwarded to the Police. The Police shall then, carry further investigation and submit a further report to the concerned Court.”
“The Superintendent of Police, District Jhansi, shall be personally liable if in future, it transpires that any material which has come during investigation, was withheld from the concerned Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Advocate; Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR; Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Sundeep Pandhi, Advocate; Mr. Syed Mazahir Husain Chishty, Advocate; Mr. Syed Danish Hasan, Advocate; Mr. Santanu Chatterjee, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Mohod, Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Gyan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR; Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Advocate; Mr. Shiv Pratap Singh, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Rupak, Advocate; Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate; Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR; Ms. Jahanvi Bhardwaj, Advocate; Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate
Case Title: Deepak Yadav & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6904 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
