Fresh evidence must before further investigation: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that further investigation in criminal cases under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code can only be conducted when new evidence comes to light. The court stated that this legal provision could not be used casually to add or remove charges by simply restating old facts or presenting them in a different way.

“The provision of Section 173(8) cannot be invoked without there being any fresh material available before the investigating agency,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted. The court also made it clear that the purpose was uncover new material evidence unavailable earlier, and not to alter charges based on the same information already in the case file.

“The object and purpose of Section 173(8) is not to mechanically add or delete offences by merely reiterating the facts already available on the record or by presenting them with a new twist. The court concerned is fully competent to frame charges based on the prima facie case made out against the accused, on the basis of material available on the record,” Justice Brar said.

The court stressed that fair investigation was essential to ensure justice, calling it a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. “It is a matter of procedural propriety to seek permission of the court concerned before embarking on further investigation, in order to ensure free and fair investigation, which is a cherished fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, especially since the trial had commenced,” the court asserted.

Justice Brar also made it clear that the concepts of ‘further investigation’ and ‘reinvestigation’ were disparate not be interpreted as synchronous.

Justice Brar said the investigating agency was required to provide a report indicating additional evidence gathered while undertaking further investigation. “Nowhere does it stipulate that the investigating agency can only embark on this task on prior permission of the Magistrate,” the court added.

The assertions came in a case where supplementary report’s perusal 'clearly' indicated that an offence under the SC/ST Act was added under the guise of further investigation. The petitioner in the case was seeking the quashing of supplementary report under Section 173(8) and an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, whereby his objections to the same were dismissed in a case alleging outraging of modesty. Allowing the plea, Justice Brar set aside the order.