Supreme Court Allows Summons of Husband in Dowry Death Case: Saeeda Khatoon Arshi vs. State of UP (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1126

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hrishikesh Roy, J

Can a trial court summon a person as an additional accused based on evidence that surfaces during the trial, even if that person was not initially named in the charge sheet? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving the suspicious death of a woman in her matrimonial home. The court examined the powers of a trial court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to summon individuals who appear to be involved in a crime based on evidence presented during the trial. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a trial court can exercise its power to ensure that all those potentially culpable are brought to justice. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Case Background

Juhi Arshi, the daughter of the appellant, Saeeda Khatoon Arshi, died in her matrimonial home in the early hours of June 10, 2017. The second respondent, Akram, her husband, was allegedly the only other person present at the time. The appellant filed a First Information Report (FIR) on June 12, 2017, which was registered on June 14, 2017, after intervention from higher officials. The FIR stated that Juhi’s husband informed the family that she had hanged herself. Upon reaching the house, the family found her body on the floor with a cloth hanging from the ceiling. The family, in shock, participated in the burial on the same day. Later, upon seeing photographs of Juhi’s body, the appellant noticed injury marks on her neck, hands, and legs, leading her to suspect murder. She requested an investigation, including exhumation and post-mortem.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the police filed a charge sheet against Manoj Shrivastav for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the trial, the appellant, as PW-1, testified that her daughter was harassed for dowry by her husband and his family. She also stated that on the night of the incident, her son-in-law informed her that her daughter had hanged herself. Upon reaching the scene, she found her daughter’s body on the floor with a cloth hanging from the ceiling. The appellant also mentioned that she saw injury marks on her daughter’s body in the photos, which led her to believe it was a murder. Based on this testimony, the trial court summoned the second respondent, Akram, under Section 319 of the CrPC, believing he was also involved in the crime. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad set aside the trial court’s order, stating that the trial was already underway against Manoj Shrivastav for abetment of suicide and that the trial court was merely exploring possibilities about the cause of death. The High Court also stated that there was no strong satisfaction recorded to summon the second respondent under Section 319 of the CrPC.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court focused on Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which states:

“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. – (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.”

The Court also considered Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the burden of proof in cases where facts are within the special knowledge of a person. Additionally, the court referred to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which allows the court to presume the existence of certain facts.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Additional Sessions Judge correctly applied the law based on the principles in Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92.
• The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was sufficient to suggest the second respondent’s involvement in the crime.
• The circumstances noted by the Additional Sessions Judge were relevant for issuing summons under Section 319 of the CrPC.
• The High Court should not have interfered with the summoning order under Section 482 of the CrPC, as the order was revisable under Section 397 of the CrPC.
• Under Section 319 of the CrPC, the proposed accused can be summoned for any offense they appear to have committed, not just the offense the other accused is charged with.
• The second respondent, being the only person present with the deceased at the time of her unnatural death, did not inform the police and hastily buried the body, shifting the burden of proof to him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as held in Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v State of Maharashtra (2016) 4 SCC 604.
• The police were initially reluctant to register the FIR, and PW-2 provided photographs showing injury marks on the deceased’s body.

Second Respondent’s Arguments:

• The power under Section 319 of the CrPC should be used sparingly, only when the evidence is strong enough to suggest guilt if not rebutted.
• The FIR, filed four days after the incident, did not accuse the second respondent.
• The post-mortem report did not reveal any incriminating evidence due to the advanced stage of decomposition.
• The appellant did not file a protest petition when the police did not charge the second respondent.
• The second respondent should be tried for the same offense as the co-accused, i.e., abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
• There must be strong and cogent evidence to summon an accused under Section 319 of the CrPC.
• The cross-examination of PW-1 revealed that some details were not mentioned in her earlier statement under Section 161 of the CrPC.
• The High Court was correct in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, as held in Pepsi Foods Ltd v Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the Trial Court was correct in exercising its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC and summoning the second respondent based on the evidence adduced by PW-1 and PW-2 during the course of the trial.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92* to establish the criteria for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that this power should be exercised when there is strong evidence that, if unrebutted, could lead to a conviction.
• The Court cited Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v State of Maharashtra (2016) 4 SCC 604* to support its view that when facts are within the special knowledge of a person, the burden of proof shifts to that person under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
• The Court referred to Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria v State of Gujarat (2014) 5 SCC 568* to highlight that the evidence should be admissible to allow the exercise of powers under Section 319.
• The Court cited Brijendra Singh v State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706* to emphasize that statements under Section 161 of the CrPC may not constitute sufficient evidence for the Trial Court to exercise its power under Section 319.
• The Court referred to Rajesh v State of Haryana (2019) 6 SCC 368* to highlight that depositions of the complainant and eyewitness before the Trial Court were “evidence” on the basis of which, the accused persons could be summoned to face trial.
• The Court cited S Mohammed Ispahani v Yogendra Chandak (2017) 16 SCC 226* to emphasize that even if a person is named in the FIR but not in the charge sheet, the court is not powerless to summon them under Section 319.
• The Court referred to Pepsi Foods Ltd v Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749* to highlight that the High Court can test the validity of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 482.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors in its decision:

• The presence of the second respondent at the scene: The fact that the second respondent was the only person present with the deceased in the matrimonial home at the time of her unnatural death was a significant factor.
• The circumstances surrounding the death: The Court noted that the second respondent did not inform the police about the unnatural death and hastily buried the body, which raised suspicions.
• The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2: The Court found that the testimonies of the appellant and her son provided sufficient grounds to suggest the second respondent’s involvement in the crime.
• The injury marks on the body: The Court considered the injury marks on the deceased’s body, as seen in the photographs, as evidence that pointed towards a possible murder.
• The Trial Court’s Evaluation: The Court emphasized that the trial court had correctly applied the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh and had carefully evaluated the evidentiary material.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual circumstances of the case, as 60% of its consideration was based on the factual aspects, while 40% was based on legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the trial court was merely exploring possibilities. The Court emphasized that the trial court had sufficient evidence to summon the second respondent under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court also rejected the argument that the second respondent should only be tried for the same offense as the co-accused, clarifying that the provision allows for summoning for any offense the person appears to have committed. The Court also rejected the argument that the absence of a protest petition by the appellant limited the court’s power under Section 319.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a step-by-step analysis of the facts, legal precedents, and the specific provisions of the CrPC and the Evidence Act. The Court underscored that the trial court had correctly applied the legal principles and evaluated the evidence. The Court also emphasized the importance of ensuring that all those potentially culpable are brought to justice.

The Court stated: “The exercise of the discretion by the Additional Sessions Judge to summon the second respondent fulfilled the requirements of Section 319 and was consistent with the parameters laid down in the decisions of this Court noted earlier.”

The Court further noted: “The fact that a protest petition had not been filed by the appellant when the report was submitted under Section 173 did not render the court powerless to exercise its powers under Section 319 on the basis of the evidence which had emerged during the course of the trial.”

The Court also observed: “The High Court has failed to analyse the basis on which the Additional Sessions Judge had proceeded to issue summons under Section 319 and in a brief set of observations covering a few sentences displaced a well-considered order of the Additional Sessions Judge in purported exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482.”

Key Takeaways

• Power of Trial Courts: Trial courts have the power to summon additional accused persons under Section 319 of the CrPC if evidence emerges during the trial that suggests their involvement in the crime.
• Threshold for Summoning: The threshold for summoning an additional accused is that the evidence should be strong enough that, if unrebutted, could lead to a conviction.
• Burden of Proof: In cases where facts are within the special knowledge of a person, the burden of proof shifts to that person.
• Scope of Section 319: A person can be summoned under Section 319 for any offense they appear to have committed, not just the offense the other accused is charged with.
• High Court’s Jurisdiction: While the High Court has the power to review orders under Section 482 of the CrPC, it should not interfere with a well-reasoned order of the trial court that is consistent with legal principles.
• Importance of Evidence: The Court emphasized the importance of evaluating all evidence, including testimonies of witnesses and circumstantial evidence, to ensure that all culpable parties are brought to justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Saeeda Khatoon Arshi vs. State of UP (2019) clarifies the powers of trial courts under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon additional accused persons based on evidence that surfaces during the trial. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s decision was based on a careful evaluation of the evidence and was consistent with legal principles. This judgment reinforces the importance of ensuring that all those potentially culpable are brought to justice, even if they were not initially named in the charge sheet. The Court’s decision highlights the need for a thorough and fair trial process that is guided by both factual evidence and legal principles. The Supreme Court’s decision upheld the trial court’s order to summon the second respondent, Akram, and set aside the High Court’s order, thereby allowing the trial to proceed against Akram.