Exercise Of Power U/S 319 CrPC Must Precede Order Of Acquittal In Case Of Joint Result Of Both Conviction & Acquittal: MP High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently observed that when the trial court could not find any cogent reasoning about the involvement of certain parties in an offence, such persons cannot be proceeded against under Section 319 CrPC [Power To Proceed Against Other Persons Appearing To Be Guilty Of Offence] merely based on suspicion.The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh also...
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently observed that when the trial court could not find any cogent reasoning about the involvement of certain parties in an offence, such persons cannot be proceeded against under Section 319 CrPC [Power To Proceed Against Other Persons Appearing To Be Guilty Of Offence] merely based on suspicion.
The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh also remarked that an order under Section 319 CrPC can be made only before the pronouncement of an order acquitting those already arraigned where the conclusion of the trial results in i) acquittal or ii) a joint result. In a case of conviction, the proceedings under Section 319 should be initiated before the imposition of sentence, the court clarified while hearing the criminal revision petition.
“…In this case, 07 of the accused have been acquitted and remaining two have been convicted. As such, this is a case of joint result; i.e. acquittal and conviction, both. Hence, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Court should pass the order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before passing the order of acquittal…”, the bench sitting at Indore explained the digression endorsed by the trial court, contrary to the settled position of law in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009, by passing the order for separate trial after acquitting the originally accused.
For the said deviation from the settled proposition of law alone, the proceedings initiated by the trial court under Section 319 CrPC are not sustainable, the court observed.
Before the trial court, two among the accused were convicted for committing offences under Section 148, 307/149, 333/149 and 394 of IPC. The others were acquitted.
On the merits of the case, the court mentioned that the petitioners who were to be summoned for separate trial were already implicated in the offence at the initial stage. However, their case was closed by the police by submitting a final report under Section 173(8) of CrPC for lack of incriminating evidence, the court added.
Relying on apex court decisions in Brindaban Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 3 SCC 329 & Juhru & Ors vs. Karim & Anr., LiveLaw 2023 (SC) 128, High Court further observed that the power of summoning under Section 319 must be used sparingly; it requires more than a prima facie case for summoning an additional accused for separate trial.
“…the learned trial Court, without assigning sufficient ground for substratum of constituting the said offence, has wrongly observed that the role of the petitioners is suspicious…. The reasoning that the police authority is deliberately trying to save the petitioners from the allegations of the offence, is having no merit...”, the judge underscored that such ambiguous inferences cannot be grounds for impleading a person as an additional accused and initiating proceedings under Section 319.
Citing the above reasons, the court held that the petitioners/additional accused cannot be summoned as per Section 319 CrPC. The single-judge bench also set aside the findings recorded in para nos.73 to 75 of the impugned judgment which elaborated the role played by the additional accused in the case.
Advocate Himanshu Thakur appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Nisha Jaiswal appeared on behalf of the state.
Case Title: Majid @ Bablu & Anr. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Case No: Criminal Revision No. 3242 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 45