The Supreme Court of India, in a ruling delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, restored the Trial Court’s order summoning two individuals as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court’s summoning order, which was based on credible eyewitness depositions, and reiterated the wide powers available under Section 319 CrPC to summon persons not originally charge-sheeted but appearing to be involved in the offence.
Background
The appeal was filed by the complainant, Akhilesh, challenging the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 08.07.2024. The High Court had allowed the criminal revision filed by Krishna Pal Singh and Sanju @ Sanjay (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3), thereby setting aside the order dated 07.07.2023 of the Trial Court, which had summoned them under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case:
An FIR (No. 349/2021) was lodged on 15.11.2021 at Police Station Dataganj, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh by the appellant alleging that his father was shot dead by four persons—Gajendra, Mahendrapal, Krishnapal (Respondent No. 2), and Sanju (Respondent No. 3)—over a land boundary dispute.
While a chargesheet was filed against Gajendra and Mahendrapal under Sections 302, 504, and 506 IPC, a final report was submitted in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, based on depositions by eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-2), the Trial Court summoned them under Section 319 CrPC.
Arguments:
It was submitted by the appellant that both PW-1 and PW-2 had deposed before the Trial Court about the presence and active participation of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the offence. PW-1, the appellant himself, testified that the four accused, including Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, fired upon his father. PW-2 (Prithviraj), the deceased’s cousin, corroborated this account as an eyewitness present near the site of the incident.
On the contrary, Respondents argued that the police had exonerated them on the basis of statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC by some witnesses claiming they were present at a funeral in the village temple at the time of the incident. They also raised doubts on the credibility of PW-1 and PW-2, alleging PW-1 was not an eyewitness and PW-2 was a close relative of the deceased.
Supreme Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Court examined the post-mortem report, the FIR, and the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2. It found the Trial Court’s order summoning the respondents to be well reasoned. The Court noted:
“Within a few hours of the incident, the FIR was lodged in which respondent nos.2 and 3 have been named as accused and the eyewitnesses have also deposed before the Court, regarding the presence of these two persons at the spot.”
Relying on the precedent in Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368, the Court reiterated:
“The Court can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned and the Court need not wait till the cross-examination…”
Further citing S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226, it emphasised that a person not charge-sheeted can still be summoned during trial if evidence emerges against them.
The Bench observed:
“Powers under Section 319 CrPC are wide and if, during the trial or inquiry, any person, who appears to be involved in the commission of a crime but not brought before the Court as an accused, can be summoned by the Court to face the trial…”
It concluded that the High Court had committed an error by giving undue importance to Section 161 CrPC statements of some witnesses while ignoring credible depositions of PW-1 and PW-2. The Court held:
“This Court, at this stage, cannot go into these details as these are the issues that would be determined during the trial.”
Decision:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order dated 08.07.2024, and restored the Trial Court’s order dated 07.07.2023 summoning Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to face trial under Section 319 CrPC. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the present appeal and would not affect the merits of the trial.
