Supreme Court clarifies procedure for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC: Yashodhan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 18 July 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 652

Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a person who is summoned as an additional accused during a trial demand a hearing before being formally added to the list of accused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal concerning the interpretation of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court clarified that a hearing is not mandatory for individuals summoned under this provision, thereby streamlining the process of adding accused persons during an ongoing trial. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR (First Information Report) No. 186/2018, registered on June 9, 2018, at P.S. Hathras Junction, District Hathras, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant, Respondent No. 2, alleged that the appellants (Yashodhan Singh and others) had attacked his house, resulting in injuries to him and the death of his two brothers. The FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 307, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Although the appellants were named in the FIR, they were not included in the initial charge sheet as their role was still under investigation.

Subsequently, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC, seeking to summon the appellants based on the evidence presented during the trial. The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras, issued an order on September 23, 2022, summoning the appellants to join the trial as additional accused. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was dismissed on January 3, 2023, affirming the Sessions Court’s decision. This led to the appellants filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras, upon considering the complainant’s application under Section 319 of the CrPC and the evidence presented, ordered the summoning of the appellants as additional accused. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in its revisionary jurisdiction, upheld the decision of the Sessions Court. The High Court did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Sessions Court to summon the appellants. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the concurrent orders of the lower courts.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following key legal provisions:

• Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section deals with the discharge of an accused. It states, “If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.” This provision allows a court to drop proceedings against an accused if there is insufficient evidence.
• Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section empowers the court to proceed against any person who appears to be guilty of an offense based on the evidence presented during an inquiry or trial. It states, “(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.” This section allows the court to summon additional accused during the trial.

The court clarified that Section 227 CrPC applies at a stage before the commencement of trial, allowing for the discharge of an accused, while Section 319 CrPC is invoked during the trial to add new accused persons based on emerging evidence. The court also noted that the power to proceed against other persons under Section 319 CrPC is distinct from the power to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190 CrPC.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that, based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jogendra Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2015) 9 SCC 244], a person summoned under Section 319 of the CrPC must be given a hearing before being added as an accused. They contended that this right to a hearing is a necessary aspect of natural justice.
• They argued that if a person summoned under Section 319 CrPC is not given the right to seek discharge, it becomes crucial that they are heard before being added as an accused. They contended that Section 319 CrPC should be interpreted to include an opportunity for a hearing to comply with natural justice principles.
• The appellants contended that the Sessions Court could not have invoked Section 319 of the CrPC to summon them since their names were not mentioned in the final report.
• They further argued that either the judgment in Jogendra Yadav should be followed by granting them a hearing, or the matter should be referred to a larger bench if the court was not inclined to follow that judgment.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the observations in Jogendra Yadav and Ram Janam Yadav & Ors. V/s. State of U.P. & Anr. should be interpreted within the specific factual contexts of those cases. They contended that in Jogendra Yadav, the accused were indeed given a hearing before being summoned and that the observations regarding a hearing should not be taken out of context.
• They argued that if the appellants’ submissions were accepted, it would disrupt the trial process and lead to a trial within a trial, thereby delaying the proceedings and violating the principle of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• The respondents contended that Section 319 CrPC is a wholesome provision that must be invoked based on the evidence that emerges during the trial. They argued that the satisfaction of the trial court should be objective, as established in Hardeep Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92].
• The respondents argued that the purpose of Section 319 CrPC is to ensure that the real perpetrator of an offence does not get away unpunished. They contended that a purposive interpretation of the provision should be adopted to advance the cause of justice.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issue:

1. Whether a person summoned under Section 319 of the CrPC is entitled to a hearing before being added as an accused to face trial.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Hardeep Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92] – Supreme Court of India: This case clarified the scope and application of Section 319 of the CrPC. The court noted that the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at any time after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment. It held that the word “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood and not literally as evidence brought during a trial.
• Jogendra Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2015) 9 SCC 244] – Supreme Court of India: The appellants relied on this case, arguing that it mandates a hearing for persons summoned under Section 319 CrPC. However, the Supreme Court in the present case clarified that the observations in Jogendra Yadav regarding a hearing were specific to the facts of that case and do not establish a mandatory rule.
• Ram Janam Yadav & Ors. V/s. State of U.P. & Anr. – Supreme Court of India: This case was also cited by the appellants. The Supreme Court noted that in this case, the accused was in fact given an opportunity of hearing.
• Sukhpal Singh Khair vs. State of Punjab, [(2023) 1 SCC 289] – Supreme Court of India: This Constitution Bench judgment discussed the meaning of “conclusion of trial” in the context of Section 319 CrPC. It held that the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence in a case of conviction, or before the order of acquittal is pronounced.
• Brijendra Singh & Ors. v/s. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 SCC 706] – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the degree of satisfaction required for invoking powers under Section 319 CrPC. It held that the evidence in this context means the material that is brought before the court during the trial.

Authorities 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 analyzed the authorities as follows:

• Hardeep Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92]*: The court relied on this case to highlight that Section 319 CrPC is an empowering provision to ensure that the real perpetrator of an offence is brought to trial. The court also emphasized that the evidence under Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood.
• Jogendra Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2015) 9 SCC 244]*: The court clarified that the observations in this case regarding a hearing were specific to the facts of that case and do not establish a mandatory rule. The court held that the ratio of Jogendra Yadav does not mandate a hearing for persons summoned under Section 319 CrPC.
• Ram Janam Yadav & Ors. V/s. State of U.P. & Anr.*: The court noted that this case did not establish a mandatory rule for hearing before summoning under Section 319 CrPC, as the accused in that case was in fact provided a hearing.
• Sukhpal Singh Khair vs. State of Punjab, [(2023) 1 SCC 289]*: The court relied on this case to understand the meaning of “conclusion of trial” in the context of Section 319 CrPC. It emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised before the conclusion of the trial.
• Brijendra Singh & Ors. v/s. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 SCC 706]*: The court used this case to highlight that the degree of satisfaction for invoking powers under Section 319 CrPC is greater than the degree warranted at the time of framing of charges. The court emphasized that strong and cogent evidence is needed to exercise this power.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair and efficient trial process. The court emphasized that Section 319 of the CrPC is a crucial provision to bring the real culprits to justice and that this provision should not be diluted by importing principles of natural justice that are not explicitly contemplated under the law. The court was particularly concerned about the potential for delaying the trial if a hearing were to be mandated for every person summoned under Section 319 CrPC. The court noted that the summoned person has the right to assail the summoning order before a superior court and can also cross-examine the witnesses and lead evidence in defense during the trial.

The court also emphasized that the power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is based on a higher degree of satisfaction than the satisfaction required at the time of framing of charge. The court highlighted that the trial should not be derailed by a “mini-trial” at the stage of summoning an additional accused.

Fact:Law: The court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%). The court primarily focused on interpreting the provisions of Section 319 CrPC and other related sections, as well as the precedents set by earlier judgments.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A person summoned under Section 319 of the CrPC is not entitled to a hearing before being added as an accused in the trial.
• The observations in Jogendra Yadav regarding a hearing are specific to the facts of that case and do not establish a mandatory rule.
• The power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC is based on a higher degree of satisfaction than the satisfaction required at the time of framing of charge.
• The trial should not be derailed by a “mini-trial” at the stage of summoning an additional accused.
• A person summoned under Section 319 CrPC can challenge the summoning order before a superior court and has the right to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense during the trial.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, other than dismissing the appeal. The appellants were permitted to appear before the Sessions Court on the next date of hearing and seek all remedies available to them in law.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that the ratio of Jogendra Yadav does not mandate a hearing for persons summoned under Section 319 CrPC. This judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 319 CrPC as a provision to ensure that the real perpetrators of an offense are brought to trial without causing undue delays. The court has emphasized that a person summoned under Section 319 CrPC cannot claim a right to discharge under Section 227 CrPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a person summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC is not entitled to a hearing before being added to the trial. The court clarified that the observations in Jogendra Yadav were specific to the facts of that case and do not establish a mandatory rule. The court emphasized that Section 319 CrPC is a crucial provision to bring the real culprits to justice and that this provision should not be diluted by importing principles of natural justice that are not explicitly contemplated under the law. The court’s decision reinforces the interpretation of Section 319 CrPC as a provision to ensure a fair and efficient trial process.