Bench
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
Date of Judgment
12th January, 2024
Parties Involved
Petitioners/Revisionists: Sanju, Dhanpal, Satendra, and Sher Singh
Respondent No. 1: State of Uttar Pradesh
Respondent No. 2: Sunil (Complainant)
Subject Matter
The case deals with the propriety of a trial court’s order summoning Sanju and others under Section 319 CrPC, based on the evidence of a prosecution witness during trial. The High Court was called upon to determine whether the standard of evidence required to summon additional accused had been properly met.
Provisions Involved
- Section 319 CrPC – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence
This section empowers a court to proceed against any person not being the accused if, during the course of any inquiry or trial, it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offence for which they could be tried together with the accused. The court may summon or arrest such a person, and the proceedings in respect of them shall be commenced afresh, with witnesses re-heard. - Section 397 CrPC – Calling for records to exercise powers of revision
This provision allows the High Court or any Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court within its jurisdiction to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order. It also permits the court to suspend the execution of any sentence or order during the examination. - Section 401 CrPC – High Court's powers of revision
Outlines the High Court's powers in revision, enabling it to exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal. However, it stipulates that no order shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless they have had an opportunity of being heard. Additionally, it prohibits the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. - Section 147 IPC – Punishment for rioting
This section prescribes the punishment for rioting, stating that whoever is guilty of rioting shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. - Section 148 IPC – Rioting, armed with deadly weapon
Under this provision, anyone guilty of rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon or anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. - Section 149 IPC – Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object
This section holds that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who is a member of the same assembly at the time of the committing of that offence is guilty of that offence. - Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder
Section 302 stipulates that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Factual Background
The case includes and incident which took place on 25th August 2021 in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Two persons, namely Amar Singh and Man Singh, were killed. A FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the IPC was lodged. Four named accused were initially charge-sheeted and sent up for trial.
But during the trial, the prosecution presented PW-1, Sunil, who was also the first informant and an eyewitness to the occurrence. In his deposition to the trial court, he asserted that the revisionists—Sanju, Dhanpal, Satendra, and Sher Singh—were also parties to the assault causing the deaths. He had stated that these persons formed part of the unlawful assembly and had actively taken part in the assault.
Dependent on this declaration, the trial court issued an order under Section 319 CrPC ordering the summoning of the revisionists to stand trial along with the already charge-sheeted accused. In protest of this summoning order, the revisionists went in revision before the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
Legal Issues
- Whether the testimony of PW-1 (Sunil), as conducted during trial, was adequate enough to warrant summoning the revisionists under Section 319 CrPC?
- Whether the trial court was justified in applying the required standard of evidence for invoking Section 319 CrPC against parties not originally arrayed as accused?
- Whether the revision petition under Sections 397/401 CrPC is tenable and maintainable in the said facts?
Arguments of the Revisionists
The defense of the revisionists argued that the order of summoning was illegal, obnoxious, and signed without application of mind. It was put forth that Sanju's name and the names of the other petitioners were not referred to in the FIR. No active acts were traced to them during the initial investigation, nor were they charge-sheeted. The incriminating statement of PW-1 against them appeared only during the trial and was an uncorroborated oral evidence without any material backing.
It was also contended that the invocation of further accused persons under Section 319 CrPC is not to be done on a routine basis or on suspicion or prima facie assumption. The power is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly and only on compelling and cogent evidence which would reasonably result in conviction if it is not rebutted. Revisionists argued that the evidence of PW-1 was not so strong.
Arguments of the State and Complainant
The advocate appearing on behalf of the State and Respondent No. 2 justified the order for summoning, claiming that it was enough to proceed against the petitioners based on the statement of PW-1. They placed on record that the provision under Section 319 CrPC is made to ensure no guilty person is left without trial just because the investigating agency did not mention them in the charge sheet. They based their argument on various precedents to propose that even the lone evidence of an eyewitness may be enough to call an extra accused in case it is found credible and reliable.
Court's Analysis and Reasoning
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh made a thorough examination of the statutory framework of Section 319 CrPC and the jurisprudence that has developed over it. He started by reiterating that Section 319 CrPC grants an exceptional power to the trial court, and this power should be exercised with exceptional caution and prudence.
The court cited the case of the landmark ruling of the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court established the principle that although the standard of proof under Section 319 is lower than for conviction, it is greater than mere suspicion or a prima facie case. The evidence must be such that if not contradicted, may result in conviction of the individual to be summoned.
The court also cited the case of Brindaban Das v. State of West Bengal, wherein it was held that inconsistent and unclear statements in the course of trial cannot be the reason for summoning a fresh accused. In the current case, the court held that Sunil's incriminatory statement against the revisionists was not only tardy but also lacking in detail.
No individual role was assigned to any one of them. Further, the FIR and police inquiry had not mentioned these individuals despite Sunil being the complainant right from the start.
Justice Singh held that prosecution had not proven why these four individuals were abruptly brought on trial and why their inclusion was prevented earlier if they were involved at all. He reiterated that law does not support summoning individuals to placate complainants or to expand the net of suspects without material reasons.
The court also observed that Sunil's deposition was insufficiently consistent or corroborative. It revealed no concrete overt act or the revisionists' role that would make the court hold the view that their participation was such that conviction was reasonably possible. An omnibus and general allegation that "they too were part of the assault" is not enough to meet the test of evidence under Section 319 CrPC.
Final Decision
Based on the above discussion, the High Court granted the criminal revision of Sanju and others. The order of summoning dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge was revoked. The court held that the impugned order was passed contrary to the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court and amounted to a patent abuse of the process of law. No material or compelling evidence was discovered that could warrant their prosecution at the trial stage.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of summoning and acquitted the revisionists from further proceedings based on the same trial.
