Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the summoning of a police inspector as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The allegations of demands for money and custodial mistreatment had been consistently made before his later testimony against the complainant’s father, undermining his contention that the summoning application was retaliatory. The trial must proceed independently on its merits.
Issues
- Whether the evidence satisfied the requirements for summoning the appellant under Section 319 CrPC.
- Whether the allegations were a later improvement or retaliation for the appellant’s testimony against the complainant’s father.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973After examining the witnesses’ trial depositions and their earlier investigative statements, the Court found the Hardeep Singh parameters satisfied and declined to interfere with the appellant’s summoning. This was a decision requiring him to face trial, with guilt reserved for independent determination by the trial court. (¶¶ 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Held
- The initial complaint concerned a particular Rs.50,000 demand at a bank. Its omission of the full earlier sequence did not establish a later invention: the informant’s September 2013 statement and the subsequent investigative statements of his father and wife already detailed the alleged larger demands, threats and mistreatment, and their trial evidence supported that account. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- The claim that the Section 319 application was a retaliatory response to the appellant’s testimony on 29 September 2014 was factually unsustainable. The informant had made the same allegations during investigation and in trial testimony on 26 May 2014, before that date. The broader contention that the allegations were intended to pressure the investigating officer could be advanced as a defence at trial. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- On the material examined, the Constitution Bench parameters in Hardeep Singh were fully satisfied and the record disclosed a triable case against the appellant. There was therefore no ground to interfere with the summoning order. The Court avoided a detailed appraisal that might influence the trial, and expressly required the trial court to decide the case on the evidence independently of these observations. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the order summoning the appellant under Section 319 CrPC and the High Court’s refusal to interfere were left undisturbed. The trial court must decide the case on its own merits, on the evidence adduced, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations.