How to add Your evidence in investigation only in 498a

I see many number of clients who have evidence with them and waiting for the Defence evidence stage to use it. The problem with this is sometimes the best possible evidence cannot be produced by the husband to prove his innocence.

Now if the husband is saying that his relatives where not present at the time of the incidence as purported to be alleged in the investigation.

The husband can show CDR or through mobile location. Now if police is not collecting the details and doing one sided investigation then the only recourse husband has is to approach the court.

Obviously if police calls in pursuant to 41A notice the husband can circulate a letter to IO to summon the records and even after that the IO do not summon.

The husband can move concerned magistrate court with and application of monitoring investigation and section 91 application to preserve CDR or CCTV as the case may be.

If the magistrate court orders the the same can be record of chargesheet a glaring proof of your/family member innocence.

The same can be used to discharge or quashing also..at the time of filing chargesheet.

Now if the police do not do the needful and does not make the records as part of chargesheet.

The husband can demand after filing of the charge sheet under section 173(8) for further investigation.

 There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate’s powers to order further  investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra); Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate’s nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases mid-

way through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left  out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1)Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra). Therefore, to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel (supra), Athul Rao (supra) and Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361  and Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *