Summary
In a murder trial in Ghaziabad in which the employer of the deceased was a prosecution witness, the complainant applied under Section 319 CrPC to summon the employer as an additional accused, relying on vague statements of relatives about a money dispute; the trial court rejected the application, and the Allahabad High Court in revision set that order aside and remanded for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court allowed the employer's appeal and dismissed the application: under Hardeep Singh the power under Section 319 is extraordinary and requires evidence stronger than a prima facie case; here there was no eyewitness, the witness whose Section 164 statement was recorded retracted it, the widow merely voiced suspicion, and the charge-sheeted accused were themselves acquitted on the same evidence. The High Court should have decided the question itself instead of remanding.
Issues
- Whether the evidence on record, consisting of suspicion of a money dispute and a retracted Section 164 statement, met the threshold laid down in Hardeep Singh for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
- Whether the High Court in revision ought to have examined the material itself rather than remand the application for fresh consideration.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A discretionary and extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly where strong and cogent evidence, more than a prima facie case but short of satisfaction that unrebutted evidence would lead to conviction, points to complicity; the material against the appellant did not go beyond suspicion. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The only witness whose statement had been recorded before the Magistrate retracted it in court as obtained under threat of false implication and said nothing against the appellant. (¶¶ 3, 12)
Held
- The deceased's brother spoke only of a money dispute between the deceased and the appellant, the part-time cook who had given a Section 164 statement retracted it and had himself informed the appellant of the murder, the widow stated only that she was sure of the appellant's guilt for want of any other enemy, and another brother said nothing; after full evidence the trial court acquitted even the charge-sheeted accused, showing the material was insufficient for conviction, let alone for summoning the appellant. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- Instead of appreciating the evidence to decide whether a case for summoning was made out, the High Court remanded the matter, which only prolongs litigation; any infirmity in the trial court's reasoning could have been corrected in revision on the existing record. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; Allahabad High Court order dated 16.05.2017 in Criminal Revision No. 1564 of 2017 set aside; the complainant's application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant as an additional accused dismissed.