Summary
The Sessions Judge had summoned four persons as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC on the strength of the injured complainant's examination-in-chief in a trial for a knife attack after a volleyball quarrel; the High Court set that order aside in revision, relying on police enquiry reports and the absence of medical corroboration. The Supreme Court restored the summoning order against the two respondents still before it, holding that the Sessions Judge's satisfaction, formed on the Hardeep Singh standard, was a plausible conclusion that did not warrant revisional interference, and that police reports exonerating the respondents could not conclusively establish their non-involvement.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, in revision, was justified in setting aside the Sessions Judge's order under Section 319 CrPC summoning additional accused on the basis of the injured witness's examination-in-chief.
- What weight police enquiry reports finding no involvement of the proposed accused carry when a trial court decides an application under Section 319 CrPC.
- What degree of satisfaction is required before a trial court summons a person as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Applied through the Constitution Bench conclusions in Hardeep Singh: 'evidence' is read broadly, the court need not wait for cross-examination, the satisfaction required is more than a prima facie case at charge-framing but short of a conclusion that unrebutted evidence would lead to conviction, and persons not named in the FIR or not charge-sheeted may be summoned. The Sessions Judge had applied these tests to the appellant's examination-in-chief, which implicated Neeraj as having held the appellant while he was stabbed and Rajesh as having threatened to shoot him if he returned to the village. (¶¶ 1, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17)
- Sections 323, 324, 307 and 506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The offences for which the principal accused was charge-sheeted and for which the appellant sought to have the four respondents summoned to face trial along with him; the Court did not examine the ingredients, confining itself to the propriety of the summoning order. (¶¶ 1, 7, 9, 10)
- Section 25, Arms Act, 1959One of the charges framed against the principal accused for the knife used in the attack; mentioned only as part of the charges in the pending trial. (¶¶ 1, 10)
Held
- No conclusive finding that the proposed accused were not involved can be given merely on the basis of police enquiry reports (here, reports of three Deputy Superintendents of Police) that found their involvement lacking. On the injured complainant's version in his examination-in-chief, the Sessions Judge had formed a satisfaction higher than prima facie that the complicity of the two respondents had to be examined and tested on evidence at the trial. (¶¶ 8, 16, 17)
- A revisional court is competent to examine whether a trial court allowing a Section 319 application acted mechanically, without authority of law, or in derogation of Hardeep Singh (an 'eyes on' approach), but where the trial court's satisfaction is properly formed, a 'hands off' approach is the advisable and correct one. The Sessions Judge's conclusion was plausible and not absurd, so the High Court was not justified in interfering in revision; the High Court had failed to consider the matter from the proper perspective and reached an entirely wrong conclusion. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Under Section 319 CrPC, as settled in Hardeep Singh and reiterated in Jitendra Nath Mishra, the court must not act mechanically merely because some evidence implicating the person has come on record; its satisfaction must be more than the prima facie view formed at charge-framing but short of a satisfaction that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. The word 'evidence' is to be understood broadly and the court need not wait for the deposition to be tested in cross-examination. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Observations made while disposing of the appeal are not an expression of opinion on the involvement of the respondents in the crime and are confined to the disposal of the appeal. (¶¶ 15, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's order dated 07.03.2024 is set aside and the Sessions Judge's order dated 13.09.2021 allowing the Section 319 CrPC application is restored as against respondents Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj (the SLP against the other two having already been dismissed). The Sessions Judge is encouraged to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law; pending applications disposed of.