Brief Facts
- The Appellant was not named in the FIR registered under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and sections 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). However, the Appellant was summoned by the Ld. Special Court to face the trial in exercise of power under Section 319 of CrPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellant challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the High Court under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act. The said Appeal was dismissed by the High Court and thus the Appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether a person who was not named in the FIR be added as accused by exercising the powers under section 319 of the Cr.P.C if there’s sufficient evidence of his involvement?
Held
- The appeal was dismissed and the order of summoning the Appellant under section 319 Cr.P.C was upheld.
- Section 319, Cr.PC, which envisages a discretionary power, empowers the court holding a trial to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial. Such power can be exercised by the court qua a person who is not named in the FIR, or named in the FIR but not shown as an accused in the charge-sheet. Therefore, what is essential for exercise of the power under section 319, Cr. PC is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned. However, the court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power conferred by section 319, Cr. PC, must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned; its satisfaction preceding the order thereunder must be more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
- The Appellant was not named in the FIR but, that by itself, cannot be held to be decisive. Once it is conceded that the appellant is a sibling of Dharmendra and he is named as one of the assailants, the material for forming the requisite satisfaction cannot be said to be non-existent.
- Furthermore, for the purpose of passing an order under section 319, Cr.PC, it is sufficient to form a satisfaction of the nature indicated in paragraph 106 of the decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab: (2014) 3 SCC 92.
Relevant Para No.
- 6, 9, 10