Summary
The Court set aside orders summoning the deceased driver’s employer as an additional accused and remitted the matter to the Sessions Judge. Section 319 requires strong and cogent evidence exceeding the prima facie standard used to frame charges, though cross-examination is not a prerequisite. The widow’s deposition had to be reassessed under that standard. The Court did not finally determine complicity or foreclose fresh summons after proper consideration.
Issues
- Whether the additional-accused summons required reconsideration under the heightened evidentiary standard governing Section 319.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The extraordinary discretionary power requires strong and cogent evidence, more than the prima facie case sufficient for framing a charge; the summoning decision was remitted for application of that test. (¶¶ 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- Evidence need not first undergo cross-examination before Section 319 can be invoked. Nevertheless, mere probability of complicity is insufficient: the standard is higher than the prima facie charge-framing threshold, while short of the satisfaction that unrebutted evidence would lead to conviction. The inquiry does not determine guilt. (¶ 7)
- The power is extraordinary and discretionary, to be exercised sparingly on strong and cogent evidence rather than casually because another person may also be guilty. Whether the standard is met depends on the evidence tendered in the particular case. (¶¶ 7, 10, 11)
- The summons based on the widow’s deposition and the High Court’s judgment were set aside. The Sessions Judge was directed to reconsider the matter afresh under the Constitution Bench principles in Hardeep Singh, with the case listed for the parties’ presence on 30 September 2021 and appropriate orders thereafter. (¶¶ 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and summoning order set aside. Matter remitted to the Sessions Judge for fresh consideration under Section 319.