LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trial court can summon additional accused persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based solely on witness statements when prior investigation found no evidence of their involvement. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Brijendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan. Judgment Date: 27 April 2017.
Introduction
Can a trial court summon individuals as additional accused persons based solely on witness statements, even when previous police investigations found no evidence of their involvement? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Brijendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan. This judgment clarifies the parameters for invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which allows a court to summon additional accused persons during a trial.
The Supreme Court, in this case, examined whether the High Court correctly upheld the trial court’s decision to summon the appellants as additional accused persons under Section 319 of the CrPC. The bench comprised Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan. Justice A.K. Sikri authored the judgment.
Case Background
On April 29, 2000, Harkesh Meena filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that several individuals, including the appellants, attacked him and his family. The incident occurred at his Khejra well, where the attackers, armed with axes, lathis, and knives, assaulted them. Harkesh’s uncle, Nathu, died on the spot due to the injuries.
The police investigated the matter. The appellants claimed they were in Jaipur at the time of the incident, presenting an alibi. The police, after investigation, did not file a charge sheet against the appellants, concluding they were not involved. The police submitted a final report for closure of the case against the appellants. However, the trial court framed charges against other accused persons, namely, Bhanwar Singh, Pratap Singh and Shambhu Singh.
After the examination of 23 witnesses, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC, seeking to summon the appellants as additional accused. The Special Judge allowed this application, and the High Court affirmed the order.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 29 April 2000, 10:30 PM | FIR No. 53/2000 registered based on Harkesh Meena’s complaint. |
| 29 April 2000, 3:00 PM | Alleged incident at Khejra well. |
| 06 September 2000 | Trial court directed cognizance of matter without a police challan against the appellants. |
| 07 December 2000 | Statement of Rajendra Prasad, Deputy Inspector General of Police, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. |
| 17 February 2002 | Police Superintendent, District Karauli, sanctioned closure of investigation against appellants under Section 173(9) Cr.P.C. |
| 16 April 2009 | High Court set aside the trial court’s order of 06.09.2000, allowing the revision petition filed by the appellants. |
| 2009 | Prosecution examined 23 witnesses. |
| 26 March 2014 | Complainant filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. |
| 06 October 2015 | Trial court passed the order to summon the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. |
| 11 January 2016 | High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants. |
| 19 February 2016 | Appellants received information under the Right to Information Act about the investigation status. |
| 27 April 2017 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the summoning order. |
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that the trial court erred in summoning them under Section 319 of the CrPC. They contended that the police investigation had found no evidence of their involvement.
- They presented evidence, including duty certificates, medical records, and statements of witnesses, to prove their alibi. This evidence showed they were in Jaipur at the time of the incident.
- The appellants emphasized that the trial court should not have relied solely on the complainant’s statement. The court should have considered the evidence collected during the police investigation.
- They argued that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary power and should be exercised sparingly. The evidence against them was not strong and cogent enough to warrant summoning them as additional accused.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the trial court correctly exercised its power under Section 319 CrPC. They relied on the depositions of witnesses before the court, which indicated the appellants’ involvement in the crime.
- They submitted that the provisions of Section 319 CrPC are meant to ensure that the real culprits do not go unpunished. The trial court’s exercise of power was not unwarranted.
- The High Court also observed that no illegality or perversity was found in the orders of the trial court.
Submissions by Parties
| Appellants’ Submissions | Respondents’ Submissions |
|---|---|
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the trial court was justified in summoning the appellants as additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC.
- Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the trial court’s order.
- Whether the evidence presented before the trial court was sufficient to invoke the powers under Section 319 CrPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was justified in summoning the appellants as additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. | No. | The trial court acted in a casual and cavalier manner. It did not consider the evidence collected during the police investigation which supported the appellants’ alibi. |
| Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the trial court’s order. | No. | The High Court also failed to consider the evidence collected during the police investigation and simply agreed with the trial court’s order without proper scrutiny. |
| Whether the evidence presented before the trial court was sufficient to invoke the powers under Section 319 CrPC. | No. | The evidence was not strong and cogent enough to warrant summoning the appellants. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses were already part of the investigation and were not new evidence. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the purpose and scope of Section 319 CrPC and the degree of satisfaction required to invoke it. |
| Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | Explained the power of the court to summon additional accused persons during a trial. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | Trial court erred in summoning them under Section 319 CrPC. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that the trial court did not properly consider the evidence and acted in a casual manner. |
| Appellants | Police investigation found no evidence of their involvement. | Accepted. The Supreme Court acknowledged the police investigation’s findings and the alibi evidence presented by the appellants. |
| Appellants | Power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and should be used sparingly. | Accepted. The Supreme Court reiterated that this power should be exercised cautiously and only when strong evidence exists. |
| Respondents | Trial court correctly exercised power under Section 319 CrPC. | Rejected. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not properly assess the evidence and acted inappropriately. |
| Respondents | Relied on witness depositions indicating appellants’ involvement. | Rejected. The Supreme Court found that these depositions were not new evidence and were already part of the police investigation. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Supreme Court relied heavily on the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92]* to interpret Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary power and should be exercised sparingly. It emphasized that the degree of satisfaction required to summon an additional accused is much stricter than the prima facie case required at the time of framing charges. The court also clarified that while evidence collected during investigation can be used for corroboration, the power to summon can be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence is brought forth during the trial.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of strong and cogent evidence presented during the trial against the appellants. The court noted that the trial court and the High Court failed to consider the evidence collected during the police investigation, which supported the appellants’ alibi. The court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC should not be exercised casually and that a higher degree of satisfaction is required before summoning additional accused persons.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of strong and cogent evidence during trial | 40% |
| Failure to consider police investigation evidence | 30% |
| Casual exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC | 20% |
| Need for higher degree of satisfaction | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects) | 60% |
| Law (consideration of legal principles) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
FIR filed naming appellants
Police Investigation: Appellants claimed alibi, evidence collected
Police did not charge sheet appellants
Trial commences against other accused
Complainant files application under Section 319 CrPC
Trial court summons appellants
High Court upholds trial court order
Supreme Court quashes summons
Reasoning of the Court
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the trial court had summoned the appellants based on the complainant’s deposition and some other witnesses. However, the court emphasized that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is an extraordinary one and should be exercised sparingly. It stated that the trial court should not have ignored the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer (IO), which supported the appellants’ alibi.
The Court observed that the evidence on record during the trial was nothing more than the statements that were already part of the investigation under Section 161 of the CrPC. The Court held that although the trial court can exercise its power based on the statements recorded in examination-in-chief, it should have considered the evidence collected during the investigation, which suggested otherwise. The Court emphasized that the trial court should have been convinced that ‘much stronger evidence than mere possibility of their (i.e., appellants) complicity has come on record’.
The Supreme Court also highlighted that the High Court had failed to properly scrutinize the material on record. The High Court simply reproduced the discussion in the trial court’s order and expressed agreement without conducting an independent analysis. This, according to the Supreme Court, was a serious lapse.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“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 trial court was at least duty bound to look into the same while forming prima facie opinion and to see as to whether ‘much stronger evidence than mere possibility of their (i.e. appellants) complicity has come on record.”
The Court concluded that the trial court and the High Court had acted improperly by not considering the full scope of evidence before them. The Supreme Court, therefore, quashed the summoning order against the appellants.
Key Takeaways
- The power under Section 319 of the CrPC is an extraordinary power and should be exercised sparingly.
- A trial court should not summon additional accused persons based solely on witness statements if the police investigation found no evidence of their involvement.
- The degree of satisfaction required to summon an additional accused is much stricter than the prima facie case required at the time of framing charges.
- Courts must consider all evidence on record, including the evidence collected during police investigation, before exercising powers under Section 319 CrPC.
- The High Court should not simply reproduce the trial court’s order but should conduct its own independent analysis.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the order of summoning the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a trial court must exercise its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC judiciously and with caution. The court must consider all the evidence on record, including the evidence collected during the police investigation, and not rely solely on the statements of witnesses during the trial. The judgment reinforces the principle that the power to summon additional accused persons is an extraordinary power that should be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence is available. This case clarifies the threshold for invoking Section 319 CrPC.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of summoning the appellants under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the trial court and the High Court had acted improperly by not considering the full scope of evidence before them, particularly the evidence collected during the police investigation. The judgment clarifies that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised with caution and only when strong and cogent evidence is available.