Summary
The High Court erred in setting aside the trial court's summons under Section 319 CrPC to persons named by eye-witnesses as present at a murder, merely because a Special Investigation Team had found no evidence against them. A SIT's findings do not fetter the court's power under Section 319; where eye-witnesses depose to the presence of the proposed accused, summoning them is the course best suited to unravelling the truth, and all defences remain open to them at trial. The summons were restored.
Issues
- Whether the trial court's exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC to summon persons named by eye-witnesses as additional accused could be set aside by the High Court on the ground that the SIT had found them not to have been present at the place of occurrence.
- What degree of satisfaction and what evidence are required before a court may summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, as settled by Hardeep Singh, Brijendra Singh and Sukhpal Singh Khaira.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court surveyed the Constitution Bench decisions in Hardeep Singh and Sukhpal Singh Khaira and later cases: the power is discretionary and extraordinary, to be used sparingly on strong and cogent evidence led before the court (which includes examination-in-chief untested by cross-examination), on a satisfaction higher than for framing charge but short of what would lead to conviction, and before conclusion of the trial. Applied to the facts, the SIT's negative finding did not fetter the power, and eye-witness depositions naming the respondents justified the summons. (¶¶ 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Held
- The fact that a Special Investigation Team found no evidence against the proposed accused does not by itself fetter the court's power under Section 319 CrPC. Where eye-witnesses examined in the trial court have named the proposed accused as present at the place of occurrence, absolving them on the SIT's findings alone would not serve the interests of justice; the hardship of not summoning them could exceed that of summoning them, and they retain every defence at trial including cross-examination. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The power under Section 319 CrPC may be exercised on the basis of examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination, but only where strong and cogent evidence appears, on a satisfaction greater than that required for framing charge yet short of a finding that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction; it must not be exercised casually, and must be exercised before the trial concludes by judgment and sentence or acquittal. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The trial court's discretion to summon the respondents was not capricious, arbitrary or mechanical, although its order could have been better reasoned, since reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion; as a case for summoning was made out, the High Court's order setting aside the summons could not withstand scrutiny and was set aside, with directions to issue fresh summons and secure the respondents' appearance. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The State, as investigator and prosecutor, must be available to assist the courts in criminal matters; its absence despite notice, after having told the High Court that the proposed accused were rightly declared innocent, was deprecated and a copy of the judgment was sent to the Legal Remembrancer, Government of Punjab, for remedial steps. (¶ 9)
Result
Leave granted; appeals allowed; High Court order dated 18.07.2024 set aside; trial court to issue fresh summons under Section 319 CrPC to the private respondents and secure their appearance; observations confined to the summoning order, all contentions left open at trial; copy of the judgment to be sent to the Legal Remembrancer, Government of Punjab.