Investigating Officer Not Bound By FIR; May Alter Offences In Final Chargesheet U/S 173 CrPC Based On Evidence: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the Investigating Officer has wide powers during investigation to collect evidence and include or alter the applicable Sections of law in the final charge-sheet, and that the Sections mentioned in the FIR are not final.The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of an order whereby charges under Sections 302/341 IPC had been framed by the trial Court.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem, while dealing with the scope of investigation and framing of charges, observed: “Under the Code of Criminal Procedure or Bhartiya Suraksha Sanhita, the Investigating Officer (I/O) has wide powers during investigation to collect evidence and include or alter the applicable Sections of law in the final charge-sheet (under Section 173 Cr.PC). The charging Sections mentioned in the initial FIR are neither frozen nor final, rather they are only based on the complainant's version at the time of registration of the case. The I/O is duty-bound to apply the correct Sections based on the evidence that emerges, including the statement of witnesses, medical report, post-mortem report, etc”. It further observed: “The final charge-sheet reflects the I/O's conclusion after full investigation and as such, he is not statutorily bound to retain every Section mentioned in the FIR if the evidence does not support it.” The petitioner had approached the Court seeking quashment of the order framing charges, contending that the allegations made in the FIR did not disclose an offence under Section 302 IPC and that the injuries allegedly caused were not sufficient to cause death.The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is limited and that the Court cannot appreciate evidence or consider a defence at this stage.The Court, upon considering the material on record, noted that the prosecution had cited 26 witnesses and that two witnesses examined had prima facie supported the prosecution's case, and nothing destructive had been elicited by the defence at this stage. It further noted that the allegation of assault by the petitioner stood supported by the testimonies of witnesses and that the material indicated that the deceased had sustained a head injury which proved fatal. The Court then examined the legal position regarding investigation and held that the Investigating Officer is duty-bound to apply the correct Sections based on the evidence that emerges during the investigation, including statements of witnesses, medical report and post-mortem report. The Court also clarified the evidentiary value of the FIR and held: “An FIR is not proof of the facts alleged in it. It cannot independently prove or disprove that the alleged incident occurred.” It reiterated that the FIR merely sets the criminal law in motion and its contents do not carry probative value with regard to the truth of allegations, except for limited purposes of corroboration or contradiction. Dealing with the contention regarding absence of intention to cause death, the Court held that such issues involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and are matters for trial after evidence is led. The Court also took note of the post-mortem report, which opined that death was caused by “Recurrent acute on chronic SDH with complications which originated from the assault by the accused” and held that such medical opinion constitutes prima facie evidence at this stage. It further held that questions relating to sufficiency of weapon or absence of intention are to be examined during trial, as intention or knowledge is to be inferred from the totality of circumstances, including nature of assault, part of body targeted, force used and number of blows. Summarising the position, the Court held that all pleas raised by the petitioner fall within the realm of triable issues and that the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be converted into appellate or revisional jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence or conduct a mini-trial. Accordingly, finding no fault in the order framing charges based on material collected during the investigation, the Court dismissed the petition.Case Title: Manga Ram v. Union Territory of J&K Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)Click Here to Read/Download Judgment

Investigating Officer Not Bound By FIR; May Alter Offences In Final Chargesheet U/S 173 CrPC Based On Evidence: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags