Further investigation declined after trial began, while trial court power to alter charges and allow prosecution assistance was affirmed.

After filing of the charge-sheet and commencement of trial, further investigation by the CBI was not ordinarily warranted and was declined at that stage. The Court nevertheless recognised that the trial court is not powerless during trial: if the evidence justifies it, the court may alter or add to the charge and take further steps, including consideration of additional evidence, to secure a just adjudication. In a case of this nature, the victim's side could also be permitted meaningful legal assistance to the prosecution, and such participation was allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after filing of the charge-sheet and commencement of trial, a further investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation should be directed; (ii) whether the trial court retains power to alter the charge and take additional steps if the evidence so warrants; (iii) whether the appellant should be permitted to engage a lawyer to assist the prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether, after filing of the charge-sheet and commencement of trial, a further investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation should be directed.

Analysis: The grievance centred on alleged unfair and incomplete investigation in a suspicious death case. The Court accepted that a fair investigation is essential, particularly where the case rests on circumstantial evidence and there are allegations that material facts were not properly examined. At the same time, the Court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the trial had commenced, and a large number of witnesses had been examined. In that situation, directing further investigation at that stage was treated as inappropriate, though the Court emphasised that such power is not wholly excluded in every case.

Conclusion: Further investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation was declined at that stage.

Issue (ii): whether the trial court retains power to alter the charge and take additional steps if the evidence so warrants.

Analysis: The Court held that the trial court is not powerless once trial has begun. If the evidence collected during trial discloses the need for a different charge, the court may alter or add to the charge. The Court also recognised the power to summon or consider additional evidence where the interests of justice so require, and noted that the truth-seeking function of the criminal trial must not be defeated by rigid procedural constraints.

Conclusion: The trial court may, if the evidence justifies it, alter the charge and take appropriate steps under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (iii): whether the appellant should be permitted to engage a lawyer to assist the prosecution.

Analysis: The Court accepted that in a case of this nature, the victim's side may be permitted meaningful participation, and observed that such assistance would not be opposed by the State. The Court also indicated that, if necessary, the trial court may exercise its powers to ensure a proper prosecution.

Conclusion: Permission to engage a lawyer to assist the prosecution was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to order fresh investigation, but safeguarded the appellant's interest by recognising the trial court's powers to correct the course of trial and by permitting assistance to the prosecution, thereby leaving open appropriate remedies within the ongoing trial.

Ratio Decidendi: After filing of the charge-sheet and commencement of trial, further investigation should not ordinarily be ordered, but the trial court may alter the charge and take necessary steps during trial to secure a just adjudication.

---