Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Jitendra Nath Mishra against the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 1st June 2022, which had dismissed his appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case arose from an FIR registered on 28th February 2018 at Khalilabad Police Station, District Sant Kabir Nagar, under Sections 419, 420, 323, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the 1989 Act, based on a complaint by the informant. The FIR alleged that on 30th September 2017, the appellant, along with Dharmendra Nath Mishra and an unknown person, assaulted and abused the complainant and his wife using caste-related slurs. Investigation led to a charge-sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC naming only Dharmendra as the accused. The Special Court took cognizance and framed charges against Dharmendra, and trial commenced. During trial, the complainant (PW-1) and his wife (PW-2) deposed that the appellant was also involved. Based on their testimony, the Special Court passed an order on 16th October 2021 summoning the appellant under Section 319 CrPC for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the 1989 Act. The appellant challenged this order before the High Court under Section 14A(1) of the 1989 Act, but the High Court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments, held that the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only when the evidence gives rise to a strong possibility of conviction. The court noted that the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2, without corroboration, did not meet the required standard. The court also observed that the delay in lodging the FIR was not adequately explained but did not base its decision solely on that ground. The Supreme Court set aside the summoning order and the High Court's order, allowing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Summoning of Additional Accused - Standard of Proof - The power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused is not to be exercised lightly; the court must be satisfied that the evidence adduced during trial gives rise to a strong possibility that the summoned person may be convicted. Mere naming in witness deposition without corroboration or satisfaction of a higher threshold is insufficient. (Paras 4-8) B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A(1) - Appeal Against Summoning Order - Maintainability - An appeal under Section 14A(1) lies against an order passed by a Special Court under the 1989 Act, including a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC passed during trial. The High Court's dismissal of such appeal was upheld as maintainable but the merits were reconsidered. (Paras 1-3) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Delay in FIR - Relevance - While delay in lodging FIR is not fatal per se, unexplained delay can cast doubt on the prosecution's case. In this case, the delay of about five months in lodging the FIR was not adequately explained, but the court did not base its decision solely on delay. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the summoning order under Section 319 CrPC against the appellant was justified based on the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2, and whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order of High Court dated 01.06.2022 and summoning order dated 16.10.2021 set aside.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC requires stronger evidence than prima facie case
- satisfaction of court that accused may be convicted
- delay in FIR not fatal but relevant
- Section 14A(1) appeal maintainable
