TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was sufficient material on record qua the applicant such as statements of eye-witnesses and other material evidence collected and placed on record. Mere non-filing of the FSL Report is not sufficient to conclude that the chargesheet filed in the present case was incomplete. The said report can be filed by way of a supplementary chargesheet. In any case, the case of the prosecution is primarily based on the eye witness account of the complainant. The FSL report, if any, would be a corroborative piece of evidence. The opinion of the expert can always be filed before the learned Trial Court by way of supplementary chargesheet. It is further pertinent to note that in the present case, the learned Trial Court had taken the cognizance after the chargesheet was filed and the said order was not challenged by the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that the chargesheet filed in the present case was not incomplete - the bail application is dismissed. - Amit Sharma, J. For Appellant: Dhruv Gupta and Anubhav Garg, Advocates For Respondents: Aman Usman, APP and Arun Yadav, Advocate JUDGMENT Amit Sharma, J. 1. The present application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Cod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter, the applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 10.09.2021. ix. Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet in the present case was filed on 02.12.2021 qua the accused persons including the present applicant. The applicant and co-accused Rajeev Gupta @ Ramu were chargesheeted for offences under Sections 302/34/120B of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Co-accused Kumar Pal Singh was chargesheeted under Section 120B of the IPC. x. The cause of death of the deceased was opined as haemorrhagic shock consequent upon firearm and stab injuries to multiple vital organs via injury no. 1 to 7, all of which are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature . xi. In the chargesheet that was filed in the present case, it was stated that the FSL report of all the exhibits was awaited and a supplementary report in terms of Section 173(8) of the CrPC would be filed placing the results on record. xii. On 06.12.2021, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi took cognizance of offences under Sections 302/120B/34 of the IPC. xiii. Vide order dated 03.03.2022, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the matter to the Court of Session ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was submitted that material documents with respect to the case of the prosecution qua the applicant were not placed on record alongwith the main chargesheet dated 02.12.2021. To substantiate the said contention, the following table has been placed on record on behalf of the applicant: S. No. Document/Evidence yet to be obtained by the investigating authorities Relevance as per Prosecution s Case 1. The doctor s opinion regarding the injuries inflicted to the deceased allegedly on account of the knife used by the petitioner herein while allegedly stabbing the deceased It is the case of the prosecution that the said knife was allegedly used by the petitioner herein while stabbing the deceased and was also one of the grounds for seeking police custody remand of the petitioner for 2 days i.e. from 08.09.2021 till 10.09.2021 2. Doctor s opinion regarding the injuries inflicted to the petitioner himself on account of the alleged stabbing by the knife Same as above 3. The FSL report regarding the pen drive containing the alleged viral CCTV footage allegedly produced by the brother of the deceased PW-5 Sh. Pawan Sehrawat during the investigation, which pen drive had been forwarded to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant is entitled to default bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Chitra Ramkrishna v. Central Bureau of Investigation,. ii. Avinash Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation,. iii. Vijender Ors. v. State of Delhi, (1997) 6 SCC 171. iv. Krishna Singh v. The State of Bihar, 2011 (2) BLJ 108. v. Irfan Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2415/2020. vi. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. v. Kameshwar Ors., Order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Govt. Appeal No. 3660/2009. vii. Kapildeo Baitha v. State of Bihar,. viii. Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67. ix. Duo Jou Vireimi v. State of Haryana, Judgement dated 05.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Revision No. 2531/2019. x. Mohd. Arbaz Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi, Order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 8164-8166/2021. xi. Mohd. Arbaz Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi, Order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that- (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter; (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entary chargesheets filed in the present case are incomplete on account of non-filing of the documents, details of which have been given in the table reproduced hereinabove. It is further the case of the applicant that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had initially taken cognizance of offences under Sections 302/34 of the IPC only and that in itself demonstrates that the chargesheet filed was incomplete. 13. It is pertinent to note that the FIR in the present case was registered under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The main chargesheet was filed qua the applicant under Sections 302/120B/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act on 02.12.2021. The true translated version of the said chargesheet records as under: The trial be commenced after issuing summons/notices to the witnessed and the accused persons. Upon receiving the FSL result and the weapon of offence i.e. knife from FSL, a subsequent opinion from the doctor would be taken and upon completing the pending investigation, the same shall be filed through supplementary challan. The first supplementary chargesheet dated 14.03.2023 records as under: Further, the result of Biology and subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettled principle of interpretation of statute that it is to be read in its entirety. Construction of a statute should be made in a manner so as to give effect to all the provisions thereof. Remand of an accused is contemplated by Parliament at two stages; pre-cognizance and post-cognizance. Even in the same case, depending upon the nature of charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer in terms of Section 173 of the Code, a cognizance may be taken as against the person against whom an offence is said to have been made out and against whom no such offence has been made out even when investigation is pending. So long a charge-sheet is not filed within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, investigation remains pending. It, however, does not preclude an investigating officer, as noticed hereinbefore, to carry on further investigation despite filing of a police report, in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. 39. The statutory scheme does not lead to a conclusion in regard to an investigation leading to filing of final form under sub-section (2) of Section 173 and further investigation contemplated under sub-section (8) thereof. Whereas only when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days and offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, within 90 days. In the event, the investigation is not completed by the investigating authorities, the accused acquires an indefeasible right to be granted bail, if he offers to furnish bail. Accordingly, if on either the 61st day or the 91st day, an accused makes an application for being released on bail in default of charge-sheet having been filed, the court has no option but to release the accused on bail. The said provision has been considered and interpreted in various cases, such as the ones referred to hereinbefore. Both the decisions in Natabar Parida case [ (1975) 2 SCC 220 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 484] and in Sanjay Dutt case [ (1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1433] were instances where the charge-sheet was not filed within the period stipulated in Section 167(2) CrPC and an application having been made for grant of bail prior to the filing of the charge-sheet, this Court held that the accused enjoyed an indefeasible right to grant of bail, if such an application was made before the filing of the charge-sheet, but once the charge-sheet was filed, such right came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eased on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar reported in (1980) 3 SCC 152 at 157 that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This report is an intimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the Investigating Officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5) of the CrPC. Nothing more need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-Section 2 of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages the filing of the report before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and that the report must be on the completion of the investigation. The forward limb of the argument would be that an incomplete report is no report in the eyes of law. If a complete report is not filed within 180 days, the appellants would be entitled to statutory bail. 32. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :- 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation- (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-(a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). 33. It is trite that every investigation needs to be completed without unnecessary delay as per the mandate of sub-Section 1 of Section 173. Under sub-Section 2 as soon as the investigation is completed the report has to be forwarded to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. The contents of the report have to be as per sub-clauses (a) to (h) of sub-Section 2. 34. Now, an investigation would be complete if the Investigating Officer is able to gather all the facts, information and evidence as also is able to identify the accused and the requirements of sub-clause (a) to (d) are complied with in respect to the contents of the report. But sub-Section 8 of Section 173, which begins with a non-obstante clause with a deeming provision interwoven, permits further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-Section 2 has been furnished to the Magistrate. 35. It is settled law that every provision of a statute, in so far as the language permits, have to be read in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation. The further investigation under sub-Section 8 of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure supplements the charge sheet already filed and is not to be confused with the report of the investigation contemplated by sub-Section 2 of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (emphasis supplied) 18. In view of the observations made in Judgebir Singh (supra) and Syed Maqbool (supra), it is noted that the chargesheet filed in the present case satisfies the conditions contained in sub-clause (a) to (d) of Section 173(2)(i). There is a distinction between filing of a chargesheet and obtaining an expert opinion. The chargesheet is filed upon completion of investigation after the Investigating Officer has found sufficient evidence to prosecute an accused for offences under which the FIR has been registered. The FSL report or any other scientific examination would only be corroborative in nature to the material collected by the Investigating Officer and filed alongwith the chargesheet. Collection of a report of the FSL or a scientific expert, would therefore, be covered under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The proposition also finds support from a judgment rendered by a coo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
