Supreme Court overturns Trial Court’s Order under Section 319 CrPC: Aarif & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Trial Court was correct in summoning the appellants under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Aarif & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Judgment Date: 19th October 2023

Date of the Judgment: 19th October 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 947
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can a Trial Court summon individuals as accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) based on insufficient evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a murder trial. The court examined the extent of evidence required to invoke Section 319 of the CrPC, which allows a court to summon additional individuals as accused during a trial. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

On February 22, 2017, an incident occurred around 9:15 AM where the complainant’s father, Shirajuddin, was assaulted with iron rods and succumbed to his injuries. The complainant, along with his mother, Manja, were also present at the scene near heaps of bricks when the assault took place. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the complainant, stating that Shahid, Javed, the present appellants, and four to five other individuals were involved in the assault.

Initially, a charge sheet was filed against five individuals, but the present appellants were not included. Subsequently, after the testimony of PW-1, Manja (the deceased’s widow), was recorded, the Trial Court invoked Section 319 of the CrPC on July 24, 2018, to summon the appellants as additional accused. However, this order was set aside by the High Court on August 16, 2018. The High Court directed the Trial Court to record the evidence of all eyewitnesses before considering the application under Section 319 of CrPC. Following this, the Trial Court again passed an order on June 8, 2022, to proceed against the appellants under Section 319 of CrPC, which was later confirmed by the High Court on April 4, 2023.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially summoned the appellants under Section 319 of the CrPC after recording the evidence of PW-1. However, the High Court set aside this order, stating that the Trial Court should have recorded the evidence of all eyewitnesses before considering the application under Section 319 of the CrPC. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court, directing it to pass an appropriate order after recording all eyewitness testimonies. Subsequently, the Trial Court again ordered the summoning of the appellants under Section 319, which was upheld by the High Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This provision empowers a court to proceed against any person who appears to have committed an offense during the course of any inquiry or trial, even if that person was not initially named as an accused in the charge sheet. 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 also referred to its previous judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], which clarified the standard of proof required for invoking Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court in Hardeep Singh held that while the test of a prima facie case is the same as at the time of taking cognizance, the degree of satisfaction required is much stricter under Section 319 of CrPC.

Arguments

The appellants’ counsel argued that even if the evidence of PW-1 (Manja), PW-5 (Shahrookh), and PW-7 (Ekaramuddin) is taken as correct, no prima facie case was made out against the appellants. The counsel contended that the Trial Court’s order under Section 319 of the CrPC was not justified and should be set aside.

The counsel for the State and the first informant supported the impugned orders, arguing that a close scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses’ evidence is not required at this stage. They submitted that the court only needs to consider a prima facie view and that the Trial Court’s order was justified.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

✓ Whether the Trial Court was correct in exercising power under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the appellants as additional accused.

✓ Whether the evidence of PW-1, PW-5, and PW-7 was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the appellants for invoking Section 319 of CrPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

✓ Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] – Supreme Court of India: This case clarified the degree of satisfaction required for invoking Section 319 of the CrPC, stating that a stricter standard is required compared to taking cognizance.

✓ Vikas v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 3 SCC 321] – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to in Hardeep Singh, highlighting that on the objective satisfaction of the court, a person may be “arrested” or “summoned” if it appears from the evidence that such a person has committed an offense.

Judgment

✓ Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] – The Supreme Court relied on this authority to emphasize that the degree of satisfaction required for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC is much stricter than at the stage of taking cognizance.

The Court noted that the High Court had previously set aside the Trial Court’s order under Section 319 of CrPC, observing that the evidence of PW-1 was not sufficient. The Supreme Court also noted that PW-5 admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the incident with his own eyes and that PW-6 did not report the incident to the police. The statement of PW-7 was recorded three weeks after the incident.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of sufficient evidence against the appellants. The Court emphasized that the standard for invoking Section 319 of the CrPC is stricter than the standard for taking cognizance of an offense. The Court noted that the High Court had previously found the evidence of PW-1 to be insufficient and that the testimonies of other witnesses were either not credible or not direct eyewitness accounts. The delay in recording statements and the lack of corroborating evidence also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of Section 319 of the CrPC and the application of the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92]. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal standards for invoking Section 319 of CrPC were the decisive factors.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them due to the lack of sufficient corroboration and the stricter standard required under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court concluded that the evidence did not meet the threshold for summoning the appellants as additional accused.

The Supreme Court held that the evidence presented was not sufficient to meet the standards of a prima facie case as laid down by the Constitution Bench. The Court stated that while the test of a prima facie case is the same as at the time of taking cognizance, the degree of satisfaction required is much stricter under Section 319 of the CrPC.

The Court observed that: “At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 CrPC, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter.”

The Court also noted: “From the bare reading of the order dated 16th August 2018, it is apparent that the High Court did not find evidence of PW -1 as sufficient to confirm the order passed under Section 319.”

Further, the Court remarked: “Evidence of said witnesses is insufficient to meet the standards of a prima facie case laid down by the Constitution Bench.”

There was no minority opinion. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has clarified that the standard for invoking Section 319 of the CrPC is stricter than the standard for taking cognizance of an offense.
• Trial Courts must exercise caution and apply a stricter degree of satisfaction before summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC.
• The evidence of prosecution witnesses must be thoroughly scrutinized to ensure a prima facie case is made out against the individuals sought to be summoned.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence when invoking Section 319 of the CrPC.

This judgment reinforces the need for a higher threshold of evidence when summoning additional accused during a trial, ensuring that individuals are not brought into the proceedings without sufficient basis.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders dated June 8, 2022, and April 4, 2023, and dismissed the application under Section 319 of the CrPC.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the degree of satisfaction required to summon a person as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC is much stricter than the standard required for taking cognizance of an offense. This judgment reinforces the principle laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92].

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Aarif & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. overturns the Trial Court’s order to summon the appellants under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized the stricter standard required under Section 319 and found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the appellants. This judgment serves as a reminder for trial courts to exercise caution and thoroughly assess the evidence before summoning additional accused during a trial.