Summary
The Supreme Court restored a Trial Court order summoning two persons under Section 319 CrPC who were named in the FIR but dropped from the chargesheet, holding that the High Court erred in setting it aside by giving undue weight to Section 161 CrPC statements when two eyewitnesses had deposed to the respondents' presence at the spot.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in revision in setting aside the Trial Court's order summoning respondent nos. 2 and 3 under Section 319 CrPC on the basis of the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2.
- Whether doubts about the credibility of the eyewitnesses (PW-1 not being present at the spot; PW-2 being a close relative of the deceased) can be examined at the stage of summoning under Section 319 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty is wide: a person named in the FIR but not chargesheeted can be summoned if, from the evidence recorded at trial (even examination-in-chief), it appears that he can be tried with the accused already facing trial. The depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 naming the respondents as assailants justified the summoning order. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Statements of some witnesses under Section 161 placing the respondents at a village temple on the day of the incident could not outweigh sworn eyewitness depositions; the High Court erred in giving them undue weight. (¶¶ 8, 12)
- Sections 302, 504 and 506, Penal Code, 1860Offences alleged in the FIR and chargesheet arising from the shooting of the appellant's father over an agricultural boundary dispute. (¶ 3)
Held
- Powers under Section 319 CrPC are wide. Where, during trial or inquiry, evidence shows that a person not before the Court as an accused appears to be involved in the offence, he can be summoned and tried along with the other accused; this includes a person named in the FIR but not chargesheeted, and the Court may act on the examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination (following Rajesh v. State of Haryana and S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak). (¶ 10)
- Where the FIR was lodged within hours of the incident naming the respondents and two eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) deposed to their presence and participation in the firing, there was no reason why they should not face trial; the Trial Court rightly summoned them. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11)
- Challenges to the credibility of the eyewitnesses, such as whether PW-1 was actually present at the spot or that PW-2 is a close relative of the deceased, are matters for the trial and cannot be gone into at the stage of summoning under Section 319 CrPC. (¶ 11)
- The High Court erred in setting aside a well-reasoned Section 319 order by giving undue weightage to the Section 161 CrPC statements of some witnesses; a summoning order founded on eyewitness testimony recorded at trial does not merit interference. (¶ 12)
- The observations made are confined to the limited issue of summoning and shall have no bearing on the trial. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 08.07.2024 set aside; Trial Court's summoning order dated 07.07.2023 under Section 319 CrPC restored; observations not to affect the trial; pending applications disposed of and interim orders vacated.