SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE accused-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26. 2. 2002 passed by the Special Judge (Forged Note cases), Jaipur, by which the learned Special Judge has framed charges against the accused petitioner for offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 nd 323/149 IPC.
(2.) IN nut-shell, the prosecution case is that on the report of complainant Subhash as regards alleged murder of his son Deepak, a case vide FIR No. 164/2000 was registered on 10. 8. 2000 at Police Station, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. Having completed investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against accused Gulab Singh, Keshar Singh, Lokesh, Pushpendra Pareek and Ramesh Chand for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 323 IPC, and further investigation was kept pending. These 5 accused are facing trial in Sessions Case No. 1/2001. In the course of trial in Sessions Case No. 1/2001, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the present petitioner and the learned trial Court after having counsel for the parties and considering the evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it, framed charges against the accused petitioners for offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323/149 vide order impugned in this revision petition. Hence, the present revision. In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while submitting charge-sheet against 5 accused persons, further investigation was kept pending. Later- on, the police submitted charge-sheet under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. It is contended that no further evidence was collected with a view to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and on the contrary the Investigating agency recorded supplementary statements and submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner. He contended with vehemence that neither supplementary statements are permissible under the law nor supplementary charge-sheet could have been filed on the basis of supplementary statement. Therefore, the impugned order framing charges against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in Nooruddin & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (1), wherein, this Court has held as under: ". . . . under the provisions of Sec. 173 (8), the police is not precluded from investigating further in the case in respect of the offence after a report under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 163 has been forwarded to the Magistrate, if the officer-incharge obtains further evidence oral or documentary he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed under the provisions of sub-sec.(2) Therefore, supplementary charge sheet cannot be submitted without making further investigation and without obtaining further evidence oral or documentary in respect of an offence. I have considered the above argument and in my opinion the argument is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected. The case of Nooruddin vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner stands over ruled by the decision of this Court in Kalu Ram vs. State of Raj. (2), which is based on a decision of the Apex Court in K. Chandrasekhar vs. State of Kerala & Ors. In K. Chandrashekhar's case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court were not the view that after submission of police report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr. P. C. on completion of investigation, the police has a right of `further' investigation under sub-section (8) but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation, because further investigation is the continuation of earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation on reinvestigation to be started ab in initio wiping out of earlier investigation altogether. While interpreting the term `further' used in sub-sec. (8) of Section 173 Cr. P. C. their Lordships held in categorical terms that `further' investigation being the continuation of earlier one and not a fresh one or reinvestigation, does not wipe out earlier investigation altogether with a view to start start reinvestigation ab initio.
(3.) CONSIDERING the law laid down by the Apex Court in K. Chandrasekhar's case (supra), this Court in Kalu Ram's case (supra) was of the view that before forwarding to the Magistrate a `further' report u/sec. 173 (8) Cr. P. C. , the investigating agency was not required to collect fresh evidence in the course of further investigation. Thus, in view of the laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, referred to above, it can safely be concluded that while forwarding further report, the investigating agency was not required to necessarily collect fresh evidence and it could have submitted supplementary charge-sheet on the basis of the statements recorded, and on the basis of evidence collected during course of earlier investigation. It must also be concluded that further investigation against additional accused is not barred. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that statement of witness Bhawani Singh was recorded thrice and the charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed on the basis of his supplementary statement. Learned counsel further contended that Bhawani Singh was examined in evidence in Sessions Case No. 1/2001 arising out of the original charge-sheet filed against 5 accused persons. However, he did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. According to him, this was a document, which should have been considered by the trial Court while considering the question of framing charge. Having not done so, it has caused serious prejudice to the accused petitioner and he is entitled to be discharged on this score as well. ;