Date of the Judgment: March 15, 2021
Citation: Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. Etc. (2021) INSC 142
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and M. R. Shah, J.
Can a trial court summon additional individuals as accused based solely on the examination-in-chief of a witness? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, clarifying the scope and application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This judgment clarifies the powers of the court to summon additional accused during a trial based on the evidence presented. The bench comprised of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah, who delivered the judgment.
Case Background
On July 27, 2016, the appellant, Sartaj Singh, was allegedly attacked by several individuals, including the private respondents. According to the FIR lodged by Sartaj Singh, the incident occurred when he stopped his car to answer a phone call. He was then confronted by Manjeet Singh, who threatened him about plowing his barley crop. Later, while returning home, Sartaj Singh was attacked by Palwinder Singh and Satkar Singh with lathis. Subsequently, 10-12 people, including Manjeet Singh, Amarjit Singh, Rajwant Singh, Narvai Singh, and Sukhdev Singh, arrived with lathis and gandasis (a type of axe). They allegedly dragged him out of the car and assaulted him. Sartaj Singh, fearing for his life, fired his revolver in self-defense, causing the assailants to flee. He sustained severe injuries and was taken to the hospital.
Initially, the police filed a charge sheet against some of the accused but did not include the private respondents. However, during the trial, Sartaj Singh, as P.W.1, specifically named the private respondents in his evidence. Following this, the trial court, based on the evidence of Sartaj Singh and other witnesses, summoned the private respondents as additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana later overturned this order, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 27, 2016 | Sartaj Singh was attacked and injured. FIR No. 477/2016 was lodged. |
| DSP submitted a report that only four persons were involved and the respondents were not involved. | |
| Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against other accused but not against private respondents. | |
| Sartaj Singh (P.W.1), Dr. Mahinder (P.W.2) and Bhupinder Singh (P.W.7) were examined. | |
| April 21, 2018 | Trial Court allowed application under Section 319 CrPC, summoning private respondents. |
| Private respondents filed revision petitions before the High Court. | |
| August 28, 2020 | High Court allowed revision petitions, quashing the Trial Court’s order. |
| March 15, 2021 | Supreme Court allows the appeals and restores the Trial Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court, after examining the statements of the appellant (Sartaj Singh) and other eyewitnesses, and reviewing the material on record, allowed the application under Section 319 of the CrPC on April 21, 2018. This order summoned the private respondents as additional accused. The private respondents then filed two separate revision petitions before the High Court against this order. During the pendency of the revision applications, the Trial Court continued with the trial, examining 18 witnesses after summoning the additional accused. The High Court, however, allowed the revision applications and quashed the Trial Court’s order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core legal provision in this case is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which 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.”
This section empowers the court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that they have committed an offense, even if they were not initially named in the charge sheet. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to ensure that all those involved in an offense are brought to justice. The court also considered the constitutional mandate under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which provide a protective umbrella for the smooth administration of justice ensuring a fair and efficacious trial.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments
- The Trial Court was justified in summoning the private respondents under Section 319 CrPC, considering the evidence on record.
- The High Court acted beyond the scope of Section 319 CrPC by quashing the Trial Court’s order.
- The private respondents were specifically named in the FIR and in the deposition of the injured eyewitness (Sartaj Singh).
- The High Court erred in observing that there was no evidence except the statement of the appellant, as a single witness’s testimony, especially that of an injured eyewitness, is sufficient for conviction.
- The High Court should not have appreciated the deposition/evidence of the appellant on merits at this stage.
- The High Court should not have quashed the Trial Court’s order, especially since 18 witnesses had been examined by the time the High Court passed its judgment.
- The word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 CrPC should be broadly understood and not literally as evidence brought during a trial.
- The statement made in examination-in-chief constitutes ‘evidence’.
- The degree of satisfaction for invoking Section 319 CrPC should be a prima facie case, similar to that at the time of framing of charge.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly, only when circumstances warrant.
- An order under Section 319 CrPC cannot be passed simply because the first informant or a witness seeks to implicate other persons.
- There must be sufficient and cogent reasons satisfying the ingredients of Section 319 CrPC.
- The appellant’s examination-in-chief merely reiterated what was stated in the FIR, and no new evidence was placed on record.
- The DSP’s report found no evidence against the private respondents.
- The appellant is an accused in a related FIR, and his testimony is not reliable.
- The appellant’s version of the attack seems improbable.
- The High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court’s order, as there was no new evidence against the private respondents.
Submissions Table
| Main Submissions | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Trial Court’s Order |
✓ Trial Court rightly summoned based on evidence. ✓ High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. |
✓ Power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary. ✓ No new evidence to justify summoning. |
| Evidence and Testimony |
✓ Specific names in FIR and deposition. ✓ Single witness testimony is sufficient. ✓ Examination-in-chief is valid evidence. |
✓ Appellant’s statement is a mere reiteration of FIR. ✓ DSP report found no evidence. ✓ Appellant is an interested witness. |
| High Court’s Approach |
✓ High Court should not have appreciated evidence on merits. ✓ High Court should not have quashed the order at a late stage of the trial. |
✓ High Court rightly set aside the order. ✓ Trial Court erred in exercising jurisdiction. |
| Interpretation of Section 319 CrPC |
✓ ‘Evidence’ should be broadly interpreted. ✓ Prima facie case is sufficient for summoning. |
✓ Strong and cogent evidence is required. ✓ Evidence should be more than what is required at the stage of framing of charges. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following key questions:
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order passed by the Trial Court summoning the private respondents under Section 319 of the CrPC.
- Whether the Trial Court was justified in summoning the private respondents based on the examination-in-chief of the appellant.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order passed by the Trial Court summoning the private respondents under Section 319 of the CrPC. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in quashing the Trial Court’s order. The Court noted that the High Court had erred in appreciating the evidence at this stage and had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC. |
| Whether the Trial Court was justified in summoning the private respondents based on the examination-in-chief of the appellant. | The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court was justified in summoning the private respondents based on the examination-in-chief of the appellant. The Court clarified that the word “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC includes statements made during examination-in-chief and that the court need not wait for cross-examination to summon additional accused. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92: This case extensively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 319 CrPC, clarifying the powers of the Magistrate, the object, and purpose of the section. It emphasized that the real perpetrator of an offense should not go unpunished.
- Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638: This case supported the view that at the stage of considering an application under Section 319 CrPC, the High Court should not enter into the merits or appreciation of the evidence.
- S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226: This case clarified that even if the police do not implicate a person named in the FIR, the court can summon that person as an accused if evidence surfaces during the trial.
- Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368: This case reiterated that the court is not powerless under Section 319 CrPC and can summon persons named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge sheet if evidence surfaces during the trial.
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
- Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This is the central provision that empowers the court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that they have committed an offense.
- Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India: These articles provide a protective umbrella for the smooth administration of justice, ensuring a fair and efficacious trial.
- Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section defines “evidence” to include statements made by witnesses and documents produced before the court.
Authorities Table
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 | Supreme Court of India | Extensively relied upon for the interpretation of Section 319 CrPC. |
| Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to support the view that the High Court should not appreciate evidence on merits at the stage of Section 319 CrPC. |
| S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to support the view that the court can summon a person as an accused even if not charge-sheeted. |
| Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to support the view that the court is not powerless to summon persons named in FIR but not charge-sheeted. |
| Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Indian Parliament | The central legal provision under consideration. |
| Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India | Indian Constitution | Considered for ensuring fair trial. |
| Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 | Indian Parliament | Definition of ‘evidence’ considered. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Trial Court was justified in summoning the private respondents under Section 319 CrPC. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that the Trial Court had correctly applied Section 319 CrPC. |
| Appellant | The High Court acted beyond the scope of Section 319 CrPC by quashing the Trial Court’s order. | Accepted. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction. |
| Appellant | The private respondents were specifically named in the FIR and in the deposition of the injured eyewitness (Sartaj Singh). | Accepted. The Supreme Court noted that the private respondents were named in the FIR and the deposition of the witness. |
| Appellant | The High Court erred in observing that there was no evidence except the statement of the appellant. | Accepted. The Supreme Court clarified that the testimony of a single witness, especially an injured eyewitness, is sufficient. |
| Appellant | The High Court should not have appreciated the deposition/evidence of the appellant on merits at this stage. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have assessed the evidence on merits at this stage. |
| Appellant | The High Court should not have quashed the Trial Court’s order, especially since 18 witnesses had been examined by the time the High Court passed its judgment. | Accepted. The Supreme Court found that the High Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court’s order, especially with the trial nearing completion. |
| Appellant | The word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 CrPC should be broadly understood and not literally as evidence brought during a trial. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that the word ‘evidence’ should be interpreted broadly. |
| Appellant | The statement made in examination-in-chief constitutes ‘evidence’. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that statements in examination-in-chief are valid evidence. |
| Appellant | The degree of satisfaction for invoking Section 319 CrPC should be a prima facie case, similar to that at the time of framing of charge. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that a prima facie case is sufficient for summoning under Section 319 CrPC. |
| Respondent | The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly. | Acknowledged. The Supreme Court acknowledged the discretionary nature of Section 319 CrPC, but found that the Trial Court had correctly exercised it. |
| Respondent | An order under Section 319 CrPC cannot be passed simply because the first informant or a witness seeks to implicate other persons. | Partially Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that the power should not be used casually, but in this case, the Trial Court had sufficient reason. |
| Respondent | There must be sufficient and cogent reasons satisfying the ingredients of Section 319 CrPC. | Partially Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that cogent reasons are needed, and found that the Trial Court had provided those reasons. |
| Respondent | The appellant’s examination-in-chief merely reiterated what was stated in the FIR, and no new evidence was placed on record. | Rejected. The Supreme Court clarified that the reiteration of the FIR in the examination-in-chief is expected and considered valid evidence. |
| Respondent | The DSP’s report found no evidence against the private respondents. | Rejected. The Supreme Court noted that the evidentiary value of the DSP’s report was a separate issue. |
| Respondent | The appellant is an accused in a related FIR, and his testimony is not reliable. | Rejected. The Supreme Court did not find this argument to be a sufficient reason to reject the appellant’s testimony at this stage. |
| Respondent | The appellant’s version of the attack seems improbable. | Rejected. The Supreme Court held that this was a matter for trial and not for consideration at the stage of summoning. |
| Respondent | The High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court’s order, as there was no new evidence against the private respondents. | Rejected. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s approach to be incorrect and not in line with the law. |
| Respondent | Trial Court erred in exercising jurisdiction. | Rejected. The Supreme Court found the Trial Court’s order to be valid and within its jurisdiction. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court heavily relied on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, citing its detailed discussion on the scope of Section 319 CrPC, and using it as a basis for its reasoning.
- The Court cited Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638, to reinforce the point that the High Court should not have entered into the merits of the evidence at this stage.
- The Court referred to S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226, to highlight that the Court is not powerless to summon a person as an accused even if not charge-sheeted.
- The Court cited Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368, to further support that the court can summon persons named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted, if evidence surfaces during the trial.
- The Court considered Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the central legal provision to be interpreted, emphasizing its role in ensuring justice.
- The Court considered Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India to highlight the importance of fair trial.
- The Court considered Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to define “evidence” and clarify that statements in examination-in-chief are considered as evidence.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that all individuals involved in a crime are brought to justice. The Court emphasized the importance of Section 319 CrPC as a tool to prevent real culprits from escaping punishment. The Court also highlighted the significance of an injured eyewitness’s testimony, stating that it holds considerable weight. The Court was also of the opinion that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by appreciating the evidence on merits at the stage of summoning the additional accused. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the trial was at a near-end stage with 18 witnesses having been examined.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of Section 319 CrPC in ensuring justice | 30% |
| Significance of injured eyewitness testimony | 25% |
| High Court exceeded its jurisdiction | 25% |
| Trial was at a near-end stage | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case was primarily driven by legal considerations, with a focus on the correct interpretation and application of Section 319 CrPC. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal principles and precedents played a more significant role in the Court’s judgment.
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Whether High Court was justified in quashing Trial Court’s order under Section 319 CrPC
Court’s Reasoning: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by appreciating evidence on merits at the stage of summoning.
Court’s Reasoning: Trial Court had sufficient material (examination-in-chief) to summon additional accused.
Conclusion: High Court’s order quashed. Trial Court’s order restored.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s order to summon the private respondents as additional accused. The Court held that the Trial Court was justified in summoning the accused based on the examination-in-chief of the injured eyewitness. The Court emphasized that the word “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC includes statements made during examination-in-chief and that the court need not wait for cross-examination to summon additional accused.
The Court observed:
“…the accused can be summoned on the basis of even examination-in-chief of the witness and the Court need not wait till his cross-examination. If on the basis of the examination-in-chief of the witness the Court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the proposed accused, the Court may in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC array such a person as accused and summon him to face the trial.”
The Court also noted:
“At this stage, it is required to be noted that right from the beginning the appellant herein – injured eye witness, who was the first informant, disclosed the names of private respondents herein and specifically named them in the FIR.”
Furthermore, the Court stated:
“Therefore, as such, the learned Trial Court was justified in directing to issue summons against the private respondents herein to face the trial.”
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts can summon additional accused based on the examination-in-chief of a witness, without waiting for cross-examination.
- The term “evidence” under Section 319 CrPC includes statements made in examination-in-chief.
- High Courts should not appreciate evidence on merits at the stage of considering an order under Section 319 CrPC.
- The power under Section 319 CrPC is to ensure that all those involved in an offense are brought to justice.
- The testimony of an injured eyewitness holds significant weight.
- This judgment reinforces the importance of Section 319 CrPC in the criminal justice system.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the private respondents to face trial as summoned by the Trial Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a trial court can summon additional accused based on the examination-in-chief of a witness under Section 319 of the CrPC, without waiting for cross-examination. This clarifies the interpretation of “evidence” under Section 319 CrPC and reinforces the power of the trial court to ensure that all individuals involved in a crime are brought to justice. This judgment does not change the previous position of law, but it clarifies the scope of Section 319 of CrPC.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana clarifies that a trial court can summon additional accused based on the examination-in-chief of a witness under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s decision, emphasizing that the High Court should not have appreciated the evidence on merits at this stage. This ruling reinforces the power of trial courts to ensure that all those involved in a crime are brought to justice, thereby upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Summoning of Additional Accused
- Evidence Law
- Criminal Procedure
Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Categories:
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FAQ