Summary
The High Court wrongly quashed a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC by applying the standard for conviction and conducting a mini-trial on affidavits; the three eyewitnesses had named the proposed accused and assigned him a specific role, which met the requisite standard, which is more than a prima facie case at the charge stage but short of satisfaction that unrebutted evidence would lead to conviction. The summoning order was restored.
Issues
- What are the statutory requisites and governing principles for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court's order summoning a person named in the FIR but not chargesheeted, on the basis that the eyewitness evidence did not disclose motive, common intention or the manner of occurrence.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An enabling provision allowing the court to proceed against any person not being the accused where it appears from evidence in the inquiry or trial that he has committed an offence for which he could be tried with the accused; under sub-section (4) proceedings against him commence afresh. Invoked only on cogent material, with caution, and not through a mini-trial; the requisites are commission of an offence, complicity revealed by evidence adduced during inquiry or trial, and triability together with the existing accused. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 25)
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Statements under Section 161 are only corroborative material, not independent evidence, for the purpose of Section 319. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Held
- The statutory requisites for summoning a person not being the accused are that such person has committed an offence, his complicity is revealed from evidence collected during the inquiry or trial, and he can be tried together with the accused already facing trial. (¶ 14)
- Principles for exercising the Section 319 power: it protects victims and society by ensuring perpetrators do not escape; the court has a duty not to let the guilty go unpunished; the power is broad but not unbridled and rests only on evidence adduced before the court, not investigation material; a person not named in the FIR or chargesheet may be summoned if the evidence inculpates him; the power is not to be exercised casually but only on strong or cogent evidence beyond mere probability of complicity; the satisfaction required is stricter than the prima facie case at framing of charge; and no mini-trial is to be held, the expression being 'could be tried', not 'should be tried'. (¶ 15)
- Where the first informant consistently named the respondent in the FIR and in two depositions, assigning him the role of carrying a baton, and two other eyewitnesses deposed that he came armed with a stick and assaulted the family, the evidence prima facie revealed his complicity and there was sufficient material to put him on trial; the High Court erred in applying the standard used for conviction at the end of trial. (¶¶ 19, 21, 22, 23)
- The High Court conducted a mini-trial by relying on affidavits filed before the Superintendent of Police about the respondent's innocence, wrongly found that PW1 had not named him, and treated absence of motive, common intention, the sequence of events and identification of the aggressor as decisive; those questions fall for consideration at final adjudication. (¶ 24)
- The power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, but where the evidence reveals the complicity of the prospective accused it becomes obligatory to exercise it. (¶ 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 23.07.2024 set aside and the Trial Court's summoning order dated 28.09.2023 in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 2018 restored; parties to appear before the Trial Court on 28.08.2025 and the trial to be completed within 18 months.