The Supreme Court of India, in Deepak Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6904 of 2025), has once again underscored the delicate balance between prosecutorial discretion, judicial oversight, and the inviolable rights of the accused. The judgment—rendered by a Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on 17 September 2025—clarifies the impermissible shortcuts in criminal trials when cognizance of additional charges is sought to be taken without following the statutory mandate.

Background of the Case

The genesis of the litigation lay in a 2017 FIR registered under Sections 394, 452, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After due investigation, the police consciously omitted Section 394 (robbery) from the charge sheet and confined the allegations to lesser offences.

However, at the instance of the complainant, repeated attempts were made before the Trial Court and the High Court to secure the addition of Section 394 IPC. Ultimately, on the strength of affidavits filed by witnesses, the Trial Court took cognizance of Section 394, an action upheld by the High Court. Aggrieved, the accused approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s Intervention

The apex court decisively rejected the approach adopted by the lower courts. It held that reliance solely on affidavits filed by the complainant’s witnesses to take cognizance under Section 394 was “not in accordance with law.” Instead, the Court laid down the following principles:

1. Independent Judicial Satisfaction: A Trial Court, upon remand, must form its own satisfaction regarding the applicability of an additional charge. This cannot be a mechanical exercise based on materials selectively produced by one party.
2. Duty to Call for Case Diary: When allegations are made that the police omitted crucial witness statements under Section 161 CrPC, the Trial Court is duty-bound to summon the entire case diary and assess the record in its totality.
3. Proper Course of Action: If material is indeed missing, the Court may direct further investigation by the police. Only thereafter can the Court proceed to consider whether additional charges should be framed.
4. Accountability of Investigating Authorities: The Supreme Court issued a significant warning—placing personal liability upon the Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, should any material be found suppressed or withheld in the course of investigation.

Jurisprudential Significance

This ruling has both procedural and constitutional dimensions:

• Procedural Integrity: The Court has reaffirmed that the framing or alteration of charges is not a casual formality but a judicial act requiring application of mind to the full evidentiary record. Short-circuiting this process erodes the fairness of trial.
• Constitutional Safeguards: By stressing on impartial investigation and judicial oversight, the judgment aligns with Article 21 of the Constitution—the right to life and personal liberty—which demands that no individual be subjected to criminal prosecution without due process.
• Checks on Investigative Bias: The ruling implicitly recognises the danger of motivated or one-sided investigations, particularly in cases involving vulnerable complainants. However, it simultaneously shields the accused from arbitrary additions of serious charges unsupported by proper inquiry.

Implications for Criminal Justice

1. For Trial Courts: A reminder that powers under Sections 216–217 CrPC (alteration of charge) must be exercised with circumspection and backed by comprehensive evidentiary assessment.
2. For Investigating Agencies: A stern caution that suppression of material will attract judicial censure and personal accountability of senior officers.
3. For Defence Counsel: A valuable precedent to challenge attempts at introducing harsher charges without proper procedure, ensuring fidelity to fair trial standards.
4. For Complainants: While the ruling may appear restrictive, it clarifies the lawful pathway—supplementary investigation—rather than affidavits, to press for additional charges.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision is a powerful reaffirmation of the doctrine that criminal justice is not merely about conviction or acquittal, but about the process being fair, impartial, and anchored in law. In striking down the Trial Court’s reliance on affidavits to expand the scope of charges, the Court has sent a clear message: shortcuts cannot substitute statutory safeguards.

By ensuring that investigation and cognizance proceed within the strict boundaries of procedural law, the Court has fortified the twin pillars of criminal jurisprudence—due process and rule of law—while keeping intact the delicate balance between the rights of the complainant and the liberties of the accused.