Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order passed by the trial court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) summoning the appellant, Shishupal Singh, as an additional accused in a murder case. The FIR was registered on 04.09.2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The police filed a charge-sheet without naming the appellant. During the trial, the complainant (PW-1) filed an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon the appellant. The trial court allowed the application, observing that PW-1 had testified that the appellant was present with a country-made revolver and had fired with intent to kill. The appellant challenged this order by way of revision, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the matter. The Court noted that the trial court had misrecorded that the application was filed by the prosecution, whereas it was filed by the complainant. Further, the trial court misstated the evidence of PW-1, as the witness had only stated that the appellant came with a revolver but did not fire; the fatal shots were fired by other accused. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had failed to apply the correct legal principles laid down in Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. The power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, only when strong and cogent evidence appears against a person. The degree of satisfaction is higher than that for framing charges. Since the trial court did not properly appreciate the evidence or apply the law, the orders of the trial court and the High Court were set aside. The matter was remitted to the trial court to consider afresh whether to summon the appellant under Section 319 CrPC, in accordance with the principles enunciated. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Summoning Additional Accused - Degree of Satisfaction - The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly only when strong and cogent evidence appears against a person from the evidence led before the court. The degree of satisfaction required is higher than that for framing charges. The trial court must apply its mind to the evidence and not act casually. (Paras 8-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Misapplication of Facts - The trial court incorrectly recorded that the prosecution had filed an application under Section 319 CrPC, whereas it was filed by the complainant. The court also misstated the role of the appellant in the evidence. Such errors vitiate the exercise of discretion. (Paras 6-7) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Remand for Fresh Consideration - Where the trial court fails to apply the correct legal principles and misstates facts, the summoning order is liable to be set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant as an accused based on the evidence recorded during trial.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the trial court. The matter was remitted to the trial court to consider afresh whether to exercise power under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant, in accordance with the legal principles laid down in Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. Parties were left to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC
- power to summon additional accused
- degree of satisfaction
- strong and cogent evidence
- Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
