Summary
After a young wife died by hanging and only her husband and mother-in-law were charge-sheeted for dowry death, her brother, on deposing as PW-1, applied under Section 319 CrPC to summon the father-in-law, the sister-in-law and her husband; the trial court refused but the Punjab and Haryana High Court summoned all three. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal: under Hardeep Singh and Sukhpal Singh Khaira the power is extraordinary and requires evidence stronger than a prima facie case, and the trial court should evaluate whether the material against the proposed accused carries much the same weight as that against those on trial. The father-in-law, who had demanded Rs. 20 lakhs and lived under the same roof, was rightly summoned; the married sister-in-law and her husband, against whom there was no credible evidence, were not.
Issues
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to summon the father-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband of the deceased as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC in a dowry death trial in which the investigation had found no material against them.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Following the Constitution Bench decisions in Hardeep Singh and Sukhpal Singh Khaira, the power to summon an additional accused is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly on evidence, including examination-in-chief, that establishes more than a prima facie case though short of certainty of conviction; the court forms no opinion on guilt. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Held
- To prevent misuse, summoning at the very threshold of a trial should ordinarily be discouraged and the trial court should evaluate whether the material against the persons sought to be summoned carries more or less the same weightage as that against those already facing trial; absent credible evidence the power ought not to be invoked. (¶ 17)
- The complainant's further examination-in-chief disclosed that the father-in-law demanded Rs. 20 lakhs for the marriage and he lived under the same roof as the husband and mother-in-law, so he would have been privy to the alleged torture and demands and must sink or swim with them; his summoning satisfies Section 319. There is no cogent material that the married sister-in-law continued to reside in her parents' house or that she and her husband intermeddled in the couple's marital life, so summoning them on mere strong suspicion would be unjustified. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- The trial being at the stage of defence evidence, the trial court must follow the guidelines in paragraph 41 of Sukhpal Singh Khaira in proceeding against the father-in-law, including deciding whether he is to be tried jointly after securing his presence or separately. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal partly allowed without expressing any view on merits; Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated 27.01.2020 in CRM-M No. 40507 of 2018 set aside insofar as it summoned Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and sustained as to Appellant No. 1, against whom the trial court is to proceed in accordance with the Sukhpal Singh Khaira guidelines; pending applications disposed of.