Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sandeep Kumar, was the informant and a prosecution witness (PW-9) in Sessions Trial No.8/2018 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Haryana, arising out of an incident on 07.09.2017 at midnight. The FIR alleged that fifteen assailants broke into the complainant's house, armed with lathis, dandas, guns, and pistols, and assaulted the inmates, resulting in the death of Hanuman. Seven assailants were named, including Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan, who were armed with a gun and pistols respectively. The police filed a chargesheet against nine persons but placed the names of Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan in column 2 (not charge-sheeted). During trial, when the complainant was examined as PW-9, he disclosed the entire event as an eye witness and unambiguously assigned roles to these three persons. Immediately thereafter, the appellant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning them as accused. The trial court allowed the application, but the High Court set aside that order in revision. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal, examined the scope of Section 319 CrPC. The Court noted that the power under Section 319 can be exercised at any stage after cognizance and before conclusion of trial if evidence appears to show that a person not facing trial has committed an offence. The examination-in-chief of PW-9, being an eye witness, constituted sufficient evidence to proceed against the three persons. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the trial court's order, as the trial court had exercised its discretion judicially. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court's order summoning the three persons was restored.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summoning Additional Accused - Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Power to summon persons not charge-sheeted - The trial court allowed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon three persons named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted, based on the examination-in-chief of the complainant (PW-9) who assigned specific roles to them. The High Court set aside the order in revision. The Supreme Court held that the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at any stage after cognizance and before conclusion of trial, if evidence appears to show that a person not facing trial has committed an offence. The statement of PW-9, being an eye witness, constituted sufficient evidence to proceed against the three persons. The High Court erred in interfering with the trial court's order. (Paras 3-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Interference - Section 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court in revision ought not to have set aside the trial court's order summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, as the trial court had exercised its discretion judicially based on evidence. The revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to substitute the trial court's view unless perverse or illegal. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's order summoning three persons as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, when the complainant's examination-in-chief disclosed their involvement in the offence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the trial court's order summoning Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan as accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC
- power to summon additional accused
- evidence during trial
- prima facie case
- examination-in-chief as evidence
