Supreme Court limits Section 319 CrPC application in dowry death case: Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 27 February 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 177

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a trial court summon additional individuals as accused based on a dying declaration that only names one person, and vague statements from witnesses? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal concerning a dowry death case. The Court clarified the threshold of evidence required to invoke the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), emphasizing that it is not enough to have a mere probability of complicity, but rather, strong and cogent evidence that would lead to conviction if unrebutted.

This judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy. Justice R. Banumathi authored the judgment.

Case Background

Shilpa, the daughter of Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1), married Dimpal @ Akash Deep on 26 January 2006. They had two children. According to Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1), Shilpa complained about dowry demands from her husband and in-laws.

On 19 August 2012, Shilpa was allegedly set ablaze. In her dying declaration, recorded by the Tehsildar at 9:40 PM on the same day, she stated that her sister-in-law, Chanchal @ Babita, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Shilpa succumbed to her injuries later that night.

Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1) filed a complaint, and an FIR was registered against nine accused, including the appellants, under Sections 304-B, 498A, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The police filed a charge sheet against Chanchal @ Babita under Section 302 of the IPC, stating that no offense was made out against the other accused under Sections 498A, 304-B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, based on the application under Section 319 of the CrPC by the prosecution, decided that there was a prima facie case against the appellants for the offense punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. It ordered summons to be issued to the appellants.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants, stating that there were specific allegations against them and no illegality or impropriety in the trial court’s order.

Legal Framework

Section 319(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 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 allows a court to summon any person not initially accused if it appears from the evidence that they have committed an offense.

The case also involves:
✓ Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with punishment for murder.
✓ Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty by husband or relatives of husband.
✓ Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which deal with giving or taking dowry.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants’ counsel argued that while their names were mentioned in the FIR, they were later exonerated by the Investigating Officer.
• They relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 3 SCC 92], arguing that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC should be used sparingly.
• The dying declaration of the deceased only mentioned Chanchal @ Babita, and therefore, the trial court and the High Court should not have summoned the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC.

Respondent-State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the trial court was correct in summoning the appellants based on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, which indicated their involvement in the offense.
• The State contended that the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the trial court’s order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the Court was:
✓ Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the trial court’s order to summon the appellants under Section 319 CrPC for the offense punishable under Section 302 IPC, based on the available evidence.

The sub-issue that the court dealt with was whether the appellants could be summoned under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the application of Section 319 CrPC:

• Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 3 SCC 92] – Supreme Court of India. The Constitution Bench held that the power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly, only when strong and cogent evidence exists.
• Sarabjit Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab and Another [(2009) 16 SCC 46] – Supreme Court of India. The court held that an order under Section 319 CrPC should not be passed merely because a witness seeks to implicate other persons, and that sufficient and cogent reasons are required.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Empowers the court to proceed against any person not shown as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offense.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Punishment for murder.
• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Giving or taking dowry.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the trial court and the High Court did not properly examine the matter in light of the well-settled principles regarding Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary power that should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence against the person sought to be summoned.

The Court observed that the dying declaration of the deceased only mentioned Chanchal @ Babita. The statements of PW-1 and PW-3 were very general and did not attribute any specific role to the appellants. The Court noted that the Investigating Officer also did not find any offense against the appellants under Sections 498A, 304-B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“In the dying declaration, deceased Shilpa has only mentioned the name of Chanchal @ Babita; but she has not mentioned the names of others.”

“Neither the complaint nor the evidence of witnesses indicates as to the role played by the appellants in the commission of the offence and which accused has committed what offence.”

“In such circumstances, there is no justification for summoning the appellants even under Section 498A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.”

The Court concluded that there was no prima facie case made out for summoning the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC, or under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reinforced that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be used sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence against the person sought to be summoned.
• A dying declaration that names only one person is not sufficient to summon others as accused unless there is other strong evidence.
• Vague and general statements by witnesses are not sufficient to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
• Investigating Officer’s opinion is important and should be considered by the courts.
• This judgment clarifies the threshold for summoning additional accused, ensuring that individuals are not wrongly implicated in criminal cases based on weak evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allowed the appeals. The Court directed the Sessions Judge/Fast Track No.1, Moradabad to proceed with Session Trial No.35/2013 in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon additional accused must be exercised judiciously, based on strong and cogent evidence that would lead to conviction if unrebutted. The judgment reinforces the principle that mere suspicion or vague witness statements are not sufficient grounds to summon additional accused. This case does not change the existing legal position, but rather clarifies and reinforces the existing jurisprudence on the application of Section 319 CrPC.

Conclusion

In Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence against the person sought to be summoned. The Court found that the dying declaration and witness statements were insufficient to implicate the appellants in the offense. This judgment reinforces the need for a high evidentiary standard before summoning additional accused in criminal cases.