Brief Facts
- A complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2 regarding murder of his brother Bachchu Prasad.
- After investigation the police filed chargesheet against two accused persons. During trial, statements of various witnesses were recorded. The Appellant was examined as PW-6. None of the witnesses stated anything against the Appellant. After the statement of the Appellant (PW-6) was recorded, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon the Appellant as accused solely on the basis of certain vague oral allegation by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3.
- After hearing arguments, the Trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application. The High Court, vide impugned order had quashed the Order dated 15.03.2017 and remanded back the matter to the Trial Court for fresh examination.
Issues
- When can the Court exercise power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C?
Held
- The Supreme Court had set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and the application filed by the complainant for summoning the Appellant as an additional accused was dismissed as no witness other than the widow of deceased had made any allegation against the Appellant. The widow of the deceased merely stated that she is sure that the Appellant had committed murder of her husband as there was no other enemy. Moreover, after considering the entire evidence the Trial Court has even acquitted the charged accused.
- Supreme Court relied on the judgement passed by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein the Court has held, inter alia, that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence laid before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much strong evidence that near probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power u/S 319 CrPC.
- The Apex Court further concluded that the High Court only recorded that reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application were not sufficient. To avoid delay, it would have been proper exercise of power in case the High Court would have considered the material and opine as to whether a case was made out for summoning of additional accused. Whatever reasons have been recorded by the trial court in the order so passed, may not have been happily worded to the satisfaction of the High Court, but that error could have been corrected in exercise of revisional power.
Relevant Para No.
- 10, 12, 15, 16