OVERVIEW
A criminal trial is nearing its conclusion. The evidence has been led, and witnesses examined and cross examined. Only the final arguments remain. Yet, for “the pursuit of truth”, would a “further investigation” be permissible at such a belated stage? In several judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has answered this question in the affirmative, subject to there being compelling facts justifying such an extraordinary measure.
The Apex Court has clarified that the pursuit of uncovering the truth is paramount in the criminal trial process. Delays in the trial or the matter being at an advance stage are not, by themselves, grounds to bar further investigation, especially if it could yield the truth.
However, even this principle has its limits and cannot be overstretched – as was illustrated in a recent Supreme Court judgment on October 1, 2024 in the matter of K Vadivel v K Shanti & Ors.[1] (“Vadivel”).
THE FACTS
- A first information report was lodged on March 31, 2013 in relation to the murder of the husband of Respondent No.1
- A chargesheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) was filed on July 11, 2023 following which trial began.
- Respondent No.1/wife of the deceased (PW-2 in the trial) was examined on March 18, 2017.
- Other witnesses were examined and re-examined.
- In October 2019, as the trial was nearing conclusion, an application was filed by Respondent No.1 seeking examination of additional witnesses (under Section 311 CrPC). The Ld. Trial Court dismissed it vide order dated November 29, 2019 inter alia noting the near seven-year delay seven in filing such an application.
- The Hon’ble High Court of Madras (“High Court”) also dismissed a criminal revision against this order on December 16, 2019 inter alia noting the delay in the application under Section 311 and also observing that no application for additional/further investigation had been filed.
- In January 2020, an application seeking further investigation (under Section 173(8)) was filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1 inter alia alleging that the State had failed to investigate the presence of other eyewitnesses at the crime scene. The names of “additional eyewitnesses” mentioned in this application were the same as the witnesses sought to be summoned under Section 311.
- The Ld. Trial Court dismissed this application on July 23, 2020, noting that the Chargesheet had been filed as far back as July 2013, and if there were any lacunae in the investigation, they could have been pointed out much earlier.
- As against this order, a criminal revision petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court- which was allowed by order dated April 30, 2021. This order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vadivel.
ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Supreme Court cleared the deck by observing that the trial being at an advanced stage or delay in the trial would not by itself be a bar for an order of further investigation. The Court further observed that where necessary, further investigation can be ordered, that even an order for reinvestigation by a High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was permissible. Thus, the advanced stage or delay in the trial, while relevant factors, are not they key considerations when deciding on the need for further investigation.
The Court noted that there “should be a reasonable basis which should trigger the application for further investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction that ends of justice require the ordering/permitting of further investigation”.
Applying this to the facts at hand, it was observed that Respondent No.1 had not averred anything new in her evidence or in her cross examination-regarding alleged lapse in investigation. No new material was placed/averred, which would justify the need for further investigation. The court noted the immense delay in seeking further investigation – with the application by Respondent No.1 coming nearly at the end of the trial.
Before parting with the case, the Court observed that a delay in trial caused by further investigation is permissible for the pursuit of truth – only when grounds justifying such delays exist, and not otherwise, as was the present case.
The Court also observed that “The legal profession has an important role to play in the process. Any proceeding or application which prima facie lacks merit should not be instituted in a court.”
TAKEAWAYS
‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is a legal truism. The hope for speedy dispensation of justice is not only an expectation of society but is also an intrinsic part of rule of law. These principles have been affirmed and re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Yet, what is paramount is that justice must be done against the bedrock of truth- and every endeavour must be made for the truth to emerge. Section 173(8) of the CrPC is statutory embodiment of this principle.
In this effort, however, justice itself ought not to become the scapegoat.
While crucial, the power granted under Section 173(8) ought to be exercised sparingly and with due regard to the material facts. It must be kept in mind that further investigations cannot be sought nor permitted in the absence of relevant additional material/facts. A number of other factors, such as delay in seeking such an investigation and the contemporaneous conduct regarding the investigation already on record (through the chargesheet) should also be considered. It cannot be sufficient to say that the investigation was faulty or lacking-without showing how, why and where (if any) do the lapses lie.
A trial near conclusion cannot be delayed by requests for further investigation- particularly when moved so belatedly and without any new materials or basis. These principles clearly emerge from the Court’s judgment in Vadivel.
For further information, please contact:
Kapil Arora, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
kapil.arora@cyrilshroff.com
[1] Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4360 of 2022
