2006 Supreme(All) 2554

[2006(8) ADJ 45 NOC]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : AMAR SARAN, J.
TILAK SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS ........Applicants/Revisionists
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ........Opposite Party
(Criminal Revision No. 2889 of 2005, decided on 14th September, 2006)

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 401, 173(2), 173(8) and 161—Revision—Against rejecting applicant’s prayer for discharge and passing an order framing charges against them—At stage of committal revisionists submitted an application for reinvestigation—No order passed by Court—On direction of superior police officer and after obtaining permission from Court concerned—Further investigation was permitted—Complainant moved application before High Court against said permission—As a result I.O. was summoned and he was directed by High Court not to conduct a fresh investigation but only conduct further investigation—Thereafter, I.O. submitted case diary after completing investigation—Case committed to Sessions trial—Another Crl. revision filed before High Court—But, High Court ordered that as matter related to a murder case, order framing charges could not be deferred—No meticulous examination of evidence is required at time of framing charges—Only it is to be considered that whether prima facie case made out or not—No illegality in order framing charges—Present revision dismissed. (B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 173(8)—Scope of—Further investigation—No scope for a fresh investigation—However, further investigation with permission of Court concerned can be conducted—It does not amount to re-investigation.

       (C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 173(2)—Report of further investigation—Not submitted in form mentioned in Section 173(2) of CrPC—Requirement is only directory—In absence of any prejudice to accused no particular advantage can accrue to accused.

       (D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 173(2)—Report of further investigation—Binding effect of—Held, Court concerned is not bound by opinion of I.O. about names or complicity of accused—Court is free to reach its own conclusion.

       (E) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 145—Statement of witnesses—Value of—Statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC earlier or after new investigation—Do not constitute substantial evidence—Their only purpose is to contradict evidence of witnesses produced in trial.