LEGAL ISSUE: What is the threshold for a court to summon a person as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: 13 September 2021
Date of the Judgment: 13 September 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 569
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can a court summon a person as an additional accused based solely on the statements made during a witness’s deposition? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in the case of Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. The State of U.P. & Anr., clarifying the standards required for invoking the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court emphasized that this power, which allows a court to summon individuals not initially named in the chargesheet, should be exercised judiciously and only when there is strong and cogent evidence suggesting their involvement in the crime. This judgment serves as a significant reminder of the need for a higher evidentiary threshold before summoning additional accused in criminal cases.
Case Background
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on June 27, 2015, by the second respondent, alleging that her husband, who was the driver of the appellant, was murdered by his employer (the appellant) with the help of his friends. The FIR stated that the deceased had informed his wife that he was going to meet the appellant for work. Later, he called her to say he was going to Gola and would return by evening. After that, his phone was switched off, and an unidentified dead body was found.
During the trial, the second respondent, the deceased’s wife, testified on August 5, 2017. She stated that on June 23, 2015, her husband had left home in the morning, saying that his car owner (the appellant) had called him. She also mentioned that her husband had called her around 2 p.m., informing her that he was going to Gola with the appellant. She further testified that the appellant had told her that her husband’s car was found near a tubewell and that her husband’s slippers were inside the car. Based on this, she stated her belief that the appellant, along with his friends, had murdered her husband.
Following this deposition, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to summon the appellant as an additional accused. The Sessions Judge, Khiri, allowed this application on September 11, 2018, and ordered the appellant to be summoned. This order was unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court, leading to the appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 27, 2015 | FIR lodged by the second respondent alleging her husband’s murder by the appellant. |
| June 23, 2015 | Deceased leaves home to meet the appellant; calls his wife to say he is going to Gola with the appellant. |
| August 5, 2017 | Second respondent (deceased’s wife) deposes in court, stating her belief that the appellant murdered her husband. |
| August 5, 2017 | Prosecution files application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant. |
| September 11, 2018 | Sessions Judge, Khiri, orders the summoning of the appellant under Section 319 CrPC. |
| September 13, 2021 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and sets aside the order of the Sessions Judge. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Judge, Khiri, upon considering the deposition of the second respondent, invoked Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and ordered the summoning of the appellant as an additional accused. The High Court upheld this order. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the summons.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section empowers a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offense for which they could be tried together with the accused. The relevant part of the section states:
“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 Supreme Court has previously clarified the conditions under which this power can be exercised, emphasizing that it is a discretionary and extraordinary power that should be used sparingly.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the lower courts erred in invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) solely based on the deposition of the second respondent.
- The appellant contended that the deposition did not meet the required standard of “strong and cogent evidence” as laid down by the Supreme Court in previous judgments.
- The appellant relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another AIR 2019 SC 734 to support their claim that a higher evidentiary threshold is required.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the deposition of the second respondent, in which she stated her belief that the appellant was involved in her husband’s murder, was sufficient for the Court to invoke Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- They contended that the deposition, even without cross-examination, could be relied upon to summon the appellant as an additional accused.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: The invocation of Section 319 CrPC was not justified. |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: The invocation of Section 319 CrPC was justified. |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in emphasizing that the power under Section 319 CrPC should not be exercised casually and that a higher evidentiary standard is required than what was applied by the lower courts.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in invoking the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on the deposition of the second respondent.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in invoking the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on the deposition of the second respondent. | The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge was not justified in invoking the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based solely on the deposition of the second respondent. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised only when there is strong and cogent evidence, not just a prima facie case. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to reiterate the principles for invoking Section 319 CrPC, emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence. |
| Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another AIR 2019 SC 734 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to further support its view that a higher evidentiary standard is required for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. |
The Supreme Court also considered Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers the court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offense for which they could be tried together with the accused.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Sessions Judge and the High Court. The Court held that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should not be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. It reiterated that a higher evidentiary standard is required than what is applied at the time of framing charges. The Court directed the Sessions Judge, Khiri, to reconsider the matter afresh in light of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the lower courts erred in invoking Section 319 CrPC based solely on the deposition of the second respondent. | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the deposition was not sufficient to invoke Section 319 CrPC. |
| Respondent’s submission that the deposition of the second respondent was sufficient to invoke Section 319 CrPC. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the deposition did not meet the required standard of “strong and cogent evidence.” |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 | The Court relied on this case to reiterate the principles for invoking Section 319 CrPC, emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence. |
| Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another AIR 2019 SC 734 | The Court referred to this case to further support its view that a higher evidentiary standard is required for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not misused. The Court emphasized that this power is an extraordinary one and should be exercised judiciously, only when there is strong evidence to suggest the involvement of a person in a crime. The Court was also concerned that the lower courts had not applied the correct legal standards, relying on a mere prima facie case instead of the required strong and cogent evidence.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for strong and cogent evidence | 40% |
| Judicious use of Section 319 CrPC | 30% |
| Concern over lower courts’ application of standards | 20% |
| Emphasis on the extraordinary nature of the power | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the principles laid down in previous judgments. The Court was clear that the power to summon additional accused should not be used lightly and that a higher standard of evidence is required than what is needed for framing charges.
The Court considered alternative interpretations of the law, but ultimately rejected them in favor of a strict interpretation of the requirements for invoking Section 319 CrPC. The Court emphasized that the power to summon additional accused is not meant to be used as a substitute for proper investigation by the police.
The decision was reached by applying the principles laid down in previous judgments, particularly the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others. The Court made it clear that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not meant to be exercised on a mere probability or suspicion, but only when there is strong and cogent evidence to suggest the involvement of a person in the crime.
The Supreme Court’s decision can be summarized as follows:
- The power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power.
- It should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence.
- The evidence required is more than a prima facie case but less than what is required for conviction.
- The Court should not exercise this power in a casual and cavalier manner.
The Court quoted from the judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others:
“Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.”
“Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.”
There was no minority opinion in this case, as the judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges.
The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving the invocation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It clarifies that the power to summon additional accused should not be used lightly and that a higher evidentiary standard is required than what is applied at the time of framing charges. This will help ensure that individuals are not summoned as accused based on mere suspicion or probability.
Key Takeaways
- The power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a discretionary and extraordinary power that should be exercised sparingly.
- Courts should not summon additional accused based on mere probability or suspicion.
- A higher evidentiary standard is required for invoking Section 319 CrPC than what is applied at the time of framing charges.
- The evidence must be strong and cogent, suggesting the involvement of the person in the crime.
- The power under Section 319 CrPC should not be used as a substitute for proper investigation by the police.
This judgment will likely lead to a more cautious approach by trial courts when considering applications under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It will also help ensure that individuals are not summoned as accused without sufficient evidence.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Sessions Judge, Khiri, to reconsider the matter afresh in light of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others. The Sessions Judge was instructed to call the case on 30.09.2021 and pass appropriate orders, keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should be exercised only when there is strong and cogent evidence against a person, not merely on a prima facie case. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, clarifying that a higher evidentiary standard is required for summoning additional accused than what is applied at the time of framing charges. There is no change in the previous position of law, but rather a reaffirmation and clarification of the existing legal principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. The State of U.P. & Anr. clarifies the threshold for summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court reiterated that this power should be exercised judiciously and only when there is strong and cogent evidence, not just a prima facie case. This ruling serves as a significant reminder of the need for a higher evidentiary threshold before summoning additional accused in criminal cases, ensuring that individuals are not summoned without sufficient evidence.
Category
Parent category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Child category: Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Parent category: Criminal Law
Child category: Summons, Additional Accused
FAQ
Q: What is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?
A: Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offense for which they could be tried together with the accused.
Q: What is the evidentiary standard for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC?
A: The evidentiary standard is that there must be strong and cogent evidence against the person, not just a prima facie case. The evidence should be more than what is required for framing charges but less than what is required for conviction.
Q: Can a court summon an additional accused based solely on a witness’s deposition?
A: No, a court cannot summon an additional accused solely based on a witness’s deposition unless the deposition reveals strong and cogent evidence of the person’s involvement in the crime.
Q: What should a trial court do if it finds that the evidence does not meet the standard required for summoning an additional accused?
A: If the evidence does not meet the standard of strong and cogent evidence, the trial court should refrain from exercising the power under Section 319 CrPC.
Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in this case?
A: The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies the threshold for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, ensuring that this power is exercised judiciously and only when there is strong and cogent evidence. This helps protect individuals from being summoned as accused without sufficient evidence.