Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an FIR registered on 27.07.2016 at Police Station Assandh concerning the death of Amarjit Singh and injuries to Manjeet Singh, the appellant. The FIR alleged that Sartaj Singh and others attacked the victims, leading to charges under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, only Sartaj Singh was charged, while others, including Sukhpal Singh, Tejpal Singh, Parab Sharan, and Preet Samrat, were exonerated. During the trial, the appellant, examined as PW1, reiterated allegations against these private respondents in his examination-in-chief. He filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon them as additional accused, but the trial court dismissed it on 05.09.2017, and the High Court upheld this dismissal in CRR No.28 of 2018. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts erred in not exercising power under Section 319 CrPC, as his testimony alone sufficed for summoning, and that appreciation of evidence at this stage was impermissible. The Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 319 CrPC, referencing precedents like Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that power can be exercised based on examination-in-chief evidence without delving into merits. The court emphasized that the appellant, as an injured eye-witness, should normally be believed, and his naming of respondents in the FIR and deposition warranted summoning. It found that the trial court and High Court had inappropriately assessed evidence merits at the summoning stage, contrary to legal principles. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the trial court to summon the private respondents as additional accused to face trial in FIR No.477 of 2016.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summoning Additional Accused - Section 319 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - Appellant sought summoning of private respondents as additional accused based on his examination-in-chief as PW1 in trial arising from FIR No.477 - Trial court and High Court rejected application, but Supreme Court held that power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised even on basis of examination-in-chief of a single witness, without appreciation of evidence on merits - Court emphasized that injured eye-witness testimony should normally be believed unless compelling reasons exist - Held that trial court and High Court committed error in not summoning additional accused, and appeal allowed (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Law - Injured Eye-Witness Credibility - General Principle - Not mentioned - Appellant was injured eye-witness in FIR No.477, and his testimony was relied upon for summoning additional accused - Supreme Court referred to precedent stating that unless there are compelling circumstances, injured eye-witness should normally be believed - This principle supported the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC without delving into merits at summoning stage (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court and High Court erred in rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning private respondents as additional accused in FIR No.477 of 2016
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the trial court to summon the private respondents as additional accused to face trial in FIR No.477 of 2016
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC empowers trial court to summon additional accused based on evidence during trial
- even on basis of examination-in-chief of a single witness
- without entering into merits of evidence
- and injured eye-witness testimony should normally be believed unless compelling reasons exist
