The Supreme Court has clarified that the power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to summon additional accused must be exercised with caution and only when a clear case is made out. In its judgment in Hetram @ Babli v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 4656 of 2024), the Court also stressed that while a delay in exercising this power based on pending cross-examination is unjustified, evidence from cross-examination cannot be disregarded if it is available.
The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, quashed a Rajasthan High Court order that had allowed the summoning of Hetram @ Babli as an accused. The Court reiterated the principles governing the invocation of Section 319 CrPC, which allows a trial court to proceed against persons not originally arrayed as accused if compelling evidence emerges during trial.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Hetram @ Babli, was accused of striking the deceased with a spade during a confrontation. The application under Section 319 CrPC was based on the examination-in-chief of two alleged eyewitnesses, PW-2 Sona and PW-4 Seema, who claimed to have seen the incident. The Trial Court rejected the application, citing a lack of prima facie evidence against the appellant. However, the High Court overturned this decision in a revision petition filed by the complainant (second respondent), prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Considered
1. Threshold for Exercising Section 319 CrPC: The Court reiterated its previous ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], emphasizing that the test for summoning additional accused requires more than a prima facie case. The evidence must demonstrate that if unrebutted, it could lead to a conviction.
2. Role of Cross-Examination: The Court observed that while the application of Section 319 CrPC should not be postponed due to pending cross-examination, if cross-examination evidence is available, it cannot be ignored. In this case, the omissions revealed during cross-examination undermined the credibility of the witnesses.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court, in its detailed judgment, made critical observations about the use of Section 319 CrPC:
– “The power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly and judiciously.”
– “A trial court must ensure that the evidence presented, even at the examination-in-chief stage, reaches a standard where conviction would be possible if the evidence remained unrebutted.”
– “If cross-examination of material witnesses has occurred, ignoring it while deciding a Section 319 application would be unjust and contrary to principles of fairness.”
The Decision
After reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court noted significant contradictions in the witnesses’ testimonies. PW-2 and PW-4 omitted key details during cross-examination, and no corroborative evidence was presented. The Court concluded that the satisfaction required under Section 319 CrPC could not be recorded and quashed the High Court’s order.
The appeal by Hetram @ Babli was allowed, and the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated February 8, 2023, in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 375 of 2015, was set aside.
