Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shiv Prakash Mishra, lodged an FIR on 06.09.2013 alleging that respondent No.2, Subhash Chandra Shukla, along with four others, formed an unlawful assembly, attacked the complainant's family due to old enmity, and caused the death of Sangam Lal Mishra. The police initially registered the FIR against all five accused, but after investigation by CBCID, charge sheets were filed only against three accused, excluding respondent No.2. During the trial, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon respondent No.2 as an additional accused. The trial court dismissed the application, noting contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding respondent No.2's role and evidence that he was at his workplace in Mirzapur at the time of the incident. The High Court affirmed this order. The Supreme Court, considering the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, held that the power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly, requiring strong and cogent evidence. Given the contradictory witness statements and the investigation findings, the courts below correctly declined to summon respondent No.2. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Summoning of Additional Accused - Section 319 CrPC - Standard of Proof - The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly only when strong and cogent evidence appears from the evidence led before the court, requiring a higher degree of satisfaction than at the time of framing of charge. (Paras 8-11)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Summoning of Additional Accused - Section 319 CrPC - Contradictory Witness Statements - Where the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statements regarding the role of the proposed accused and the investigation revealed evidence of his absence from the scene, the courts rightly declined to summon him. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in affirming the trial court's order declining to summon the second respondent as an accused under Section 319 CrPC despite the complainant's allegations and witness statements.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the trial court and High Court declining to summon the second respondent as an accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC
- Power to summon additional accused
- Standard of proof for summoning
- Discretionary power
- Strong and cogent evidence requirement
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2168 of 2019)
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against the order of the High Court affirming the trial court's refusal to summon the second respondent as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
The appellant-complainant sought to summon the second respondent as an accused in the trial for offences including murder.
Filing Reason
The appellant was aggrieved by the trial court and High Court orders declining to summon the second respondent under Section 319 CrPC despite his name in the FIR and witness statements.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed the application under Section 319 CrPC on 28.08.2018, and the High Court affirmed that order on 04.12.2018.
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in affirming the trial court's order declining to summon the second respondent as an accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Whether the complainant presented sufficient evidence to warrant the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The complainant named all five accused in the FIR; witnesses PWs 1-3 attributed overt acts to respondent No.2; the Investigating Officer wrongly expunged his name based on his alibi; the distance to his workplace was only 30 km.
Respondent-State: After proper investigation, charge sheet was filed against three accused; witnesses from respondent No.2's workplace confirmed his absence; power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly with compelling reasons.
Ratio Decidendi
The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly only when strong and cogent evidence appears from the evidence led before the court, requiring a higher degree of satisfaction than at the time of framing of charge. Contradictory witness statements and investigation findings of absence can justify refusal to summon.
Judgment Excerpts
The power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant.
Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 06.09.2013; charge sheet filed on 19.09.2014 against three accused; supplementary charge sheet on 15.10.2014 against one more; trial commenced in August 2016; application under Section 319 CrPC filed on 03.10.2017; trial court dismissed it on 28.08.2018; High Court affirmed on 04.12.2018; appeal to Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 319
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504
