The Supreme Court has drawn a sharp line for trial courts: affidavits filed by private witnesses cannot be used as shortcuts to revive or insert offences that the police have already left out of a chargesheet.
The ruling came after an unusual order from the Allahabad High Court that allowed a trial court to take cognizance of a robbery-related charge under Section 394 IPC solely on the basis of witness affidavits, without bothering to examine the police record or demanding further investigation.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.C. Sharma struck that down, stating bluntly that such an approach is not “in accordance with law.”
The case had a messy trajectory: the FIR originally carried a slew of charges including robbery, assault, intimidation, and violations under the SC/ST Act. But when the police filed their chargesheet, Section 394 disappeared from the list. Dissatisfied, the complainant repeatedly pressed the trial court to bring it back—eventually succeeding, but only through affidavits from witnesses. The High Court nodded along. The Supreme Court did not.
According to the bench, the trial court had a duty to dig deeper—by summoning the police case diary under Section 172 CrPC, examining recorded witness statements under Section 161 CrPC, and, if anything was missing, directing the police to do a proper job of it. Instead, it skipped the process entirely.
The Court was categorical: “We do not approve of such exercise in the manner it has been done.”
The justices remanded the matter back with strict instructions. The trial court must call for the full investigation record. If some witness accounts never made it into the diary, the affidavits can be handed over to the police to be recorded properly. Only after this—and after hearing all sides—can the trial court decide whether fresh charges under Section 394 should be taken up.
The bench gave a six-week deadline for compliance. It also laid personal responsibility on the Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, warning that any suppression of material evidence would be on his head. “Free and impartial investigation” was stressed as the cornerstone of fair trial.