S.319 CrPC | Stronger Evidence Needed To Summon Person As Additional Accused During Trial : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that to summon a person as an additional accused invoking powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the degree of satisfaction is much stricter. The evidence should be such that it should lead to the conviction of the accused if it is unrebutted.Section 319(1) of Cr.P.C. states that “where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence,...
The Supreme Court held that to summon a person as an additional accused invoking powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the degree of satisfaction is much stricter. The evidence should be such that it should lead to the conviction of the accused if it is unrebutted.
Section 319(1) of Cr.P.C. states that “where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.”
While referring to the constitution bench dictum in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the court observed that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. could only be invoked when the evidence to summon the accused is stronger and more reliable than the mere probability of his involvement in the crime.
“The degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is well settled after the above-referred decision. The evidence before the trial court should be such that if it goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the person who is sought to be summoned. As is evident from the above referred decision, the degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.”, the court said.
Reversing the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar observed that the High Court erred in not quashing the summons issued to the appellant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to face the trial based on the deposition of the prosecution witness who was not an eye-witness to the incident.
The Court observed that the deposition of the prosecution witness, not being an eye-witness to the incident, wouldn't be sufficient to summon the accused to face trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that PW-1, not being an eye-witness, her deposition is not sufficient enough to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 (Code of Criminal Procedure) to summon the appellants.”, the court said.
Examining the material evidence placed on record, the court noted that the deposition made by the prosecution witness was not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to summon the appellant/accused to face the trial.
“There are no other witnesses who have deposed against the appellants. There is no documentary evidence that the prosecution had collected against the appellants. There is absolutely no role that is attributed to the appellants. We are of the opinion that the deposition of PW-1 is also in line and consistent with her statement under Section 161. When these factors are looked in a holistic manner, it would be clear that the higher degree of satisfaction that is required for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not met in the present case.”, the court noted.
Based on the aforesaid observation, the court held that the trial court and High Court committed an error in justifying the summons issued to the appellant/accused to face trial under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed while setting aside the impugned orders of the High Court and Trial Court.
Counsels For Petitioner(s) Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR(Arguing counsel) Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv.
Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Yasharth Kant, AOR Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Adv.* Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR(Arguing counsel) Mr. Dhawal Uniyal, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Adv.
Case Title: SHANKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 345