LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person can be summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) based on the statement of a child witness in a case of sexual assault.
CASE TYPE: Criminal (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012)
Case Name: Mani Pushpak Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: 17 October 2019
Date of the Judgment: 17 October 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1157
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a person be summoned as an additional accused based on a child’s statement that is inconsistent and potentially influenced by family members? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving alleged sexual assault on a minor. The Court examined whether the High Court of Uttarakhand was correct in upholding the Trial Court’s decision to summon the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta. The judgment was authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.
Case Background
The case originated from an FIR lodged on April 19, 2017, by Harpreet Singh, the father of a 6-year-old girl, alleging sexual assault on his daughter at her school, Aurum the Global School Haldwani. The FIR initially accused a teacher named Bablu Bisht of molesting the child. The father stated that his daughter had been crying and upset for several days, and upon asking, she revealed that a teacher had touched her private parts and inserted a stick-like object into her vagina.
The prosecutrix’s initial statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, recorded on the same day, mentioned Bablu Uncle as the perpetrator. She stated that he had done similar things three times since she joined the class. In a subsequent statement recorded on April 22, 2017, she mentioned two other men who worked outside the school. Finally, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, recorded on April 24, 2017, she stated that two men had touched her before, one of whom wore spectacles, and that these assaults had occurred five times in the garden.
The father of the prosecutrix, Harpreet Singh (PW-1), testified that his daughter initially did not disclose the incident, but later revealed the assault. He also mentioned that after showing his daughter photos of male staff from the school’s website, she identified Bablu Bisht and another man with spectacles, who was the owner of the school. The mother of the prosecutrix, Supreet Kaur (PW-10), also testified that her daughter mentioned two persons, one of whom wore spectacles.
Gauri Vohra (PW-11), the Principal of the school, stated that the victim’s family members were angry and alleged that the school helped Balwant Singh to escape.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 19, 2017 | FIR lodged by Harpreet Singh, father of the prosecutrix, alleging sexual assault. |
| April 19, 2017 | Statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, implicating Bablu Uncle. |
| April 22, 2017 | Second statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mentioning two men working outside the school. |
| April 24, 2017 | Statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mentioning a man with spectacles. |
| February 20, 2019 | Trial Court allowed the application to summon the person with spectacles. |
| April 3, 2019 | High Court of Uttarakhand did not interfere with the order of the Trial Court. |
| October 17, 2019 | Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court. |
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision in question is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allows a court to summon any person as an additional accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense.
The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are:
- Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for rape.
- Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which specify the punishment for aggravated sexual assault.
Arguments
The appellant argued that the prosecutrix’s statements were inconsistent and improved over time. Initially, the allegations were against only one person, Bablu Bisht. However, later statements implicated two persons, with the appellant being identified based on his spectacles from a photo taken from the school’s website or Facebook. The appellant contended that he was not a member of the teaching faculty but part of the management.
The appellant relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [ (2014) 3 SCC 92 ], which held that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly. The Court had held that the evidence should be more than a prima facie case and should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction.
The appellant also relied on Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [AIR 2019 SC 734], where the Court held that the Court has to consider the substance of the evidence and apply the test of “more than prima facie case” before summoning a person under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The State argued that there was sufficient evidence to summon the appellant as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Inconsistency in Statements | The prosecutrix’s statements improved over time. | Appellant |
| Inconsistency in Statements | Initial allegations were against one person, Bablu Bisht. | Appellant |
| Inconsistency in Statements | Later statements implicated two persons. | Appellant |
| Identification | Appellant identified by spectacles from a photo. | Appellant |
| Identification | Appellant is part of management, not teaching faculty. | Appellant |
| Section 319 CrPC | Power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is discretionary and extraordinary. | Appellant |
| Section 319 CrPC | Evidence should be more than a prima facie case. | Appellant |
| Section 319 CrPC | Evidence should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction. | Appellant |
| Sufficient Evidence | There is sufficient evidence to summon the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. | State |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue:
- Whether the order summoning the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was sustainable in law, considering the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements and the evidence available.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the order summoning the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was sustainable in law. | The Court held that the order was not sustainable in law. | The Court found that the prosecutrix’s statements were inconsistent and influenced by her family. The Court also held that the evidence did not establish a prima facie case against the appellant. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | The power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly. The evidence should be more than a prima facie case and should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction. |
| Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [AIR 2019 SC 734] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | The Court has to consider the substance of the evidence and apply the test of “more than prima facie case” before summoning a person under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:
| Legal Provision | Statute | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Section 319 | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Power of the court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of the offense. |
| Section 376(2) | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Punishment for rape. |
| Sections 5/6 | Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 | Punishment for aggravated sexual assault. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and the submissions made by both parties.
The following table summarizes how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The prosecutrix’s statements improved over time. | The Court agreed that the statements were inconsistent and improved over time. |
| Initial allegations were against one person, Bablu Bisht. | The Court noted that the initial allegations were against one person. |
| Later statements implicated two persons. | The Court acknowledged that later statements implicated two persons. |
| Appellant identified by spectacles from a photo. | The Court observed that the appellant was identified based on spectacles from a photo. |
| Appellant is part of management, not teaching faculty. | The Court noted that the appellant was part of the management, not the teaching faculty. |
| Power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is discretionary and extraordinary. | The Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92] to reiterate that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is discretionary and extraordinary. |
| Evidence should be more than a prima facie case. | The Court relied on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92] and Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [AIR 2019 SC 734] to emphasize that the evidence should be more than a prima facie case. |
| Evidence should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction. | The Court relied on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92] to reiterate that the evidence should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction. |
| There is sufficient evidence to summon the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. | The Court disagreed, holding that there was no prima facie case against the appellant. |
The following table summarizes how each authority was viewed by the Court:
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92] | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly. The Court also reiterated that the evidence should be more than a prima facie case and should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction. |
| Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [AIR 2019 SC 734] | The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the Court has to consider the substance of the evidence and apply the test of “more than prima facie case” before summoning a person under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
The Court noted that the prosecutrix was a small child and that her parents had taken the photographs to identify the accused. The Court also noted that the initial version of the father and the prosecutrix was that only one person was involved. The Court observed that the anger was directed against the management of the school, of which the appellant was a part.
The Court held that the involvement of other persons based on the statement of a child of impressionable age did not inspire confidence. The Court also found that the family had influenced the mind of the child to indirectly implicate the appellant.
The Court concluded that the anger of the father against the management of the school, including the appellant, was not sufficient to make him stand trial for the offenses under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The Court held that the statement of the child to involve a person wearing spectacles did not inspire confidence and did not disclose more than a prima facie case to make him stand trial.
The Court noted that the prosecution had not found any material to charge the appellant after investigations. The Court stated that a heinous crime should not lead to prosecuting a person only because he was part of the management of the school.
The Court set aside the order of the Trial Court summoning the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“The initial version of the father of the prosecutrix and of the prosecutrix herself, as disclosed by her father in the FIR, is assault by one person.”
“Even if the father of the child has basis to be angry with the Management of the School but, we find that no prima facie case of any active part on the part of the appellant is made out in violating the small child.”
“The statement of the child so as to involve a person wearing spectacles as an accused does not inspire confidence disclosing more than prima facie to make him to stand trial of the offences.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements, the potential influence of the family, and the lack of a strong prima facie case against the appellant. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence. The Court also noted that the prosecution had not found any material to charge the appellant after investigations.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inconsistencies in statements | 30% |
| Potential influence of family | 30% |
| Lack of prima facie case | 30% |
| Prosecution found no material to charge the appellant | 10% |
The ratio of fact to law in the Supreme Court’s decision is as follows:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning can be summarized in the following flowchart:
Key Takeaways
- The power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon an additional accused should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence.
- Inconsistencies in the statements of a witness, especially a child witness, can be a ground to not summon an additional accused.
- The influence of family members on the statements of a child witness should be carefully considered.
- The court should not summon an additional accused merely because the person is part of the management of an institution where a crime has occurred.
- The court should consider the fact that the prosecution has not found any material to charge the additional accused after investigations.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court to summon the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and dismissed the application.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence. The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92] and Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [AIR 2019 SC 734], emphasizing that the evidence should be more than a prima facie case and should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction. This case reinforces the need for caution when summoning additional accused persons, especially in cases involving child witnesses and inconsistent statements. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court of Uttarakhand and the Trial Court, which had directed the summoning of the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the statements of the prosecutrix were inconsistent and potentially influenced by her family. The Court further held that there was no prima facie case against the appellant to warrant his trial for the offenses. This judgment underscores the importance of exercising caution and adhering to the principles laid down in previous judgments when summoning additional accused persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Category:
- Criminal Law
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Sexual Offences
- Child Witness
- Evidence
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 376(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Section 5, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
FAQ
Q: What is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
A: Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allows a court to summon any person as an additional accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense.
Q: When can a court summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
A: A court can summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only if there is strong and cogent evidence that suggests the person has committed an offense. The evidence should be more than a prima facie case and should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction.
Q: What did the Supreme Court say about summoning additional accused in cases involving child witnesses?
A: The Supreme Court emphasized that the statements of a child witness should be carefully considered, especially if there are inconsistencies or if there is a possibility that the child’s statements have been influenced by family members.
Q: Can a person be summoned as an additional accused just because they are part of the management of an institution where a crime has occurred?
A: No, a person cannot be summoned as an additional accused just because they are part of the management of an institution where a crime has occurred. There must be strong evidence that the person was actively involved in the crime.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the need for caution and adherence to legal principles when summoning additional accused persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It emphasizes that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence.