While Deciding Application Under S.319 CrPC, Court Must Consider Cross-examination As Well : Supreme Court
In a recent case, the Supreme Court observed that the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should not be only based on the examination in chief of the prosecution witnesses. The Court said that due credence must be also given to the prosecution witness cross-examination, if exists, before the filing of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih heard an appeal filed by the accused who was aggrieved by the High Court's decision to uphold the complainant's summoning application which was based on the prosecution's witness chief examination without considering their cross-examination.
The appellant claimed that in their chief examination, the prosecution witnesses gave incriminating evidence against the appellant, however, in their cross-examination, they said that the allegation made by them against the appellant in the examination-in-chief was an omission.
The appellant pleaded that since both the examination in chief, as well as the cross-examination of the witnesses, were available on record when the application for summoning an additional accused was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., therefore it would be improper to decide the application without taking note of the witness's cross-examination.
“In the facts of the case, the occasion for considering the application under Section 319 of the CRPC arose after the cross-examination of the only eye witnesses was recorded. Therefore, while deciding an application under Section 319 of the CRPC, the Court must consider the cross-examination as well. If an application under Section 319 of the CRPC is made after the cross-examination of witnesses, it will be unjust to ignore the same.”, the court said.
Justice Oka, in the order, reasoned that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. shall be considered only when there exists a prima facie case against the new accused. The Court said when there exists a cross-examination of the witness apart from its examination in chief, then the determination of the existence of a prima facie case would be possible while taking note of both the examination in chief and cross-examination.
Reference was drawn to the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), where it was held that if no prima facie case is recorded while deciding an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. then the courts should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 of the CRPC to summon additional accused.
Applying the law to the facts of the present case, the Court found that the prosecution witnesses cross-examination statements altogether contradict their examination in chief, thereby making no room to justify the existence of a prima facie case requiring the trial court to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
“In view of the omissions which are material and which amount to contradiction, obviously no Court could have recorded a satisfaction which is contemplated by Section 319 of the CRPC. It is impossible to record a finding that even a prima facie case of involvement of the appellant has been made out.”, the court observed.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
“We make it clear that consideration by this Court of the evidence of the two prosecution witnesses is only for the limited purposes of considering the prayer under Section 319 of the CRPC as against the appellant.”, the court clarified.
Case Title: HETRAM @ BABLI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 930
Click here to read/download the order