Summary
A school-management member challenged being summoned as an additional accused during trial of a child-sexual-assault case. Applying the heightened evidentiary threshold for section 319 CrPC, the Court found the later photographic identification and surrounding evidence insufficient to connect him actively with the offences. It set aside his summoning without deciding the pending prosecution against the original accused.
Issues
- Whether the evidence met the threshold for summoning the appellant as an additional accused under section 319 CrPC.
Held
- Section 319 is a discretionary and extraordinary power requiring strong and cogent evidence, more than the prima facie standard for framing charge but short of satisfaction that unrebutted evidence would lead to conviction. Mere naming in testimony does not require mechanical summons. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The initial accounts implicated one person. The later identification through photographs selected by the family, considered with the other evidence and the absence of investigation material against this appellant, did not provide the required basis for his active involvement. Anger at school management or membership of management could not substitute for that evidence. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
Result
The appeal was allowed. The Trial Court order summoning the appellant under section 319 was set aside and the summoning application dismissed.