Supreme Court clarifies the use of Section 319 CrPC for summoning additional accused: Shishupal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) INSC 741

Date of the Judgment: September 3, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 741
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a trial court summon a person as an accused based solely on the statement of a witness during examination, even if that person was not named in the initial charge sheet? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a case concerning the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This judgment clarifies the correct procedure and standards for invoking this power. The bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

On September 4, 2005, an FIR was registered at P.S. Khera Garh, District Agra, Uttar Pradesh, as Crime Case No. 331/05. The charges included Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved a violent incident where the deceased, Satyapal, was fatally shot. The initial complaint, filed by PW-1, stated that the appellant, Shishupal Singh, was present at the scene with a country-made revolver, but the fatal shot was fired by two other accused individuals. During the trial, while PW-1 was giving his testimony, the trial court decided to summon Shishupal Singh as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, despite his name not being in the charge sheet. The appellant then challenged this order.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, acting on an application by the complainant, decided to summon the appellant, Shishupal Singh, as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. This decision was based on the testimony of PW-1, who stated that Shishupal Singh was present at the scene with a country-made revolver. The trial court noted that although Shishupal Singh’s name was mentioned in the initial complaint and FIR, the police had not included him in the charge sheet. The appellant challenged this order in a revision petition, which was dismissed by the High Court.

Legal Framework

The central legal provision in this case is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 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 a trial court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence presented during the trial that such a person has committed an offense. The Supreme Court has clarified that this power is to be used judiciously and only when there is strong evidence against the person.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the trial court had incorrectly applied Section 319 of the CrPC. The appellant contended that the order to summon him was based on a misinterpretation of PW-1’s testimony and that the trial court did not properly assess the evidence. The appellant highlighted that PW-1 was the only witness to name him, while other eyewitnesses, including the injured witness, did not.

The State argued that the trial court was correct in summoning the appellant based on the evidence presented by PW-1. The State contended that the trial court’s order was justified as PW-1’s testimony indicated the appellant’s presence at the scene with a weapon, which was sufficient to invoke Section 319 of the CrPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the trial court correctly exercised its power under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the appellant as an additional accused based on the evidence presented during the examination-in-chief of PW-1.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the trial court. The Court held that the trial court had not properly applied the principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the power to summon an additional accused should be used sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence, not merely a probability of complicity. The case was remanded to the trial court, allowing it to reconsider the issue of summoning the appellant based on the correct legal principles.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92]*: The Court reiterated and followed the principles laid down in this Constitution Bench judgment, emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence before summoning an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
• Brijendra Singh and Others. v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 SCC 706]*: The Court followed this judgment, which reiterated the principles established in Hardeep Singh, emphasizing that the evidence must be strong and cogent, not merely a probability of complicity.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the extraordinary power under Section 319 of the CrPC is exercised judiciously and only when there is strong and cogent evidence against a person. The Court was concerned that the trial court had not properly assessed the evidence and had misapplied the legal principles. The Court emphasized that the power to summon an additional accused should not be exercised in a casual or cavalier manner.

The Court emphasized that the degree of satisfaction for summoning an additional accused is higher than that required for framing charges. The Court observed that the trial court had incorrectly stated that the appellant had fired with an intention to kill, which was not in the complaint or PW-1’s testimony. The Court noted that the trial court had not correctly applied the legal principles laid down in the Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92] and Brijendra Singh and Others. v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 SCC 706].

The Court stated:

“The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge-sheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.”

“The controversy generated was not whether power could or could not be exercised under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. but whether the exercise, which was required to be undertaken by the trial Court before exercising such power, had been completed or not.”

“We thus set aside the orders of the High Court as well as the trial Court leaving it open to the trial Court to consider the issue of exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the appellant, if it so feels, based on aforesaid principles.”

Key Takeaways

• The power under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon additional accused must be exercised judiciously and sparingly.
• The evidence required to summon an additional accused must be strong and cogent, not merely a probability of complicity.
• Trial courts must correctly apply the legal principles established in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92] and Brijendra Singh and Others. v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 SCC 706] when exercising power under Section 319 CrPC.
• The degree of satisfaction for summoning an additional accused is higher than that required for framing charges.

This judgment clarifies the standards for invoking Section 319 of the CrPC, ensuring that additional accused are summoned only when there is a strong evidentiary basis. This ruling will likely impact how trial courts evaluate evidence and exercise their powers under this section.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider the issue of exercising powers under Section 319 of the CrPC based on the principles outlined in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon additional accused must be exercised judiciously and sparingly, based on strong and cogent evidence, and not merely on a probability of complicity. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in previous cases like Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92] and Brijendra Singh and Others. v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 SCC 706], thereby clarifying the correct application of Section 319 of the CrPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shishupal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies the proper application of Section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing the need for strong evidence before summoning an additional accused. The Court set aside the lower court’s orders, directing a reconsideration based on established legal principles. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the need for judicial restraint and careful assessment of evidence when exercising the power to summon additional accused.