Public Prosecutor’s Role – The Public Prosecutor cannot assume the role of an Investigating Officer or produce evidence beyond what is filed with the charge sheet. The Prosecutor must act impartially and cannot take a partisan role in favor of the victim or witness. (Paras 7, 11, 17, 22, 23, 31, 32)
Production of Evidence Post-Charge Framing – Once the trial commences (after charge framing), additional evidence cannot be produced unless it is part of further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC. The Sessions Court erred in allowing the production of documents after the trial had begun. (Paras 5, 6, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
Prejudice to the Accused – Allowing additional evidence after the trial has commenced and the defence has been disclosed would cause serious prejudice to the accused. The Court emphasized that the accused’s right to a fair trial must be protected. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CrPC – Further investigation can only be conducted before the trial begins. Once the trial commences, no further evidence can be introduced unless it is part of a supplementary charge sheet filed before the charge is framed. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
Judicial Precedents – The Court relied on several judgments, including Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1, Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar v. State of Maharashtra (2001 SCC OnLine Bom 1064), and CBI v. R.S. Pai (2002) 5 SCC 82, to reiterate the limitations on producing evidence post-trial commencement. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)

The High Court quashed the Sessions Court’s order dated 23.08.2024 and dismissed the application at Exhibit-25. The Court held that the Public Prosecutor’s application dated 19.04.2024 was not maintainable, as it sought to produce evidence beyond the charge sheet after the trial had commenced. (Paras 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI), Article 227 – Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 173(8), 231, 482 – Production of evidence, further investigation, and inherent powers of the High Court.

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 307 – Attempt to murder.

Subjects:

Public Prosecutor – Non-partisan role – Further investigation – Section 173(8) CrPC – Charge framing – Prejudice to accused – Fair trial – Supplementary charge sheet – Judicial precedents – Supervisory jurisdiction – Article 227 COI – Section 482 CrPC.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – The Petitioner, Bharat alias Bhomaram Choudhary, challenged the Sessions Court’s order allowing the Investigating Officer to produce additional evidence (photographs, CCTV footage, and a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act) after the trial had commenced.

2. Remedy Sought – The Petitioner sought to quash the Sessions Court’s order dated 23.08.2024, which permitted the production of additional evidence.

3. Reason for Filing the Case – The Petitioner argued that allowing additional evidence after the trial had commenced and the defence had been disclosed would cause serious prejudice to his case.

4. Previous Decisions – The Sessions Court had allowed the application (Exhibit-25) filed by the Investigating Officer, permitting the production of additional evidence. The High Court found this order to be contrary to established legal principles.

Issues:

1. Whether the impugned order dated 23.08.2024, allowing the production of additional evidence after the trial had commenced, is sustainable under the CrPC? (Para 12)

2. Whether the application dated 19.04.2024, filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking to exhibit additional documents, is maintainable? (Para 12)

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments – The trial had commenced after the charge was framed on 15.12.2023, and five witnesses had already been examined. Allowing additional evidence at this stage would prejudice the accused’s defence. The Public Prosecutor cannot act as an Investigating Officer or produce evidence beyond the charge sheet. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
Respondent’s Arguments – The Public Prosecutor conceded that the impugned order should be set aside, as it was contrary to the law laid down in Vinubhai Malaviya and Bhagyashree Wasankar. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)

Ratio:

Public Prosecutor’s Role – The Public Prosecutor must act impartially and cannot produce evidence beyond the charge sheet. The Prosecutor’s role is to assist the Court in arriving at the truth based on the evidence filed with the charge sheet. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
Production of Evidence Post-Trial Commencement – Once the trial begins, no additional evidence can be produced unless it is part of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, and such evidence must be filed before the charge is framed. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
Prejudice to Accused – Allowing additional evidence after the trial has commenced and the defence has been disclosed would cause serious prejudice to the accused, violating their right to a fair trial. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)