LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Trial Court can summon a person to face trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on weak or inconsistent evidence.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Shankar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Judgment Date: 2 May 2024
Date of the Judgment: 2 May 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 366
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Aravind Kumar, J.
Can a trial court summon individuals to face trial based on a witness’s statement that is contradicted by their earlier statements? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, clarifying the threshold for summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court emphasized that summoning under this provision requires strong and reliable evidence, not mere suspicion or inconsistent testimonies. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar.
Case Background
The case revolves around the murder of one Vijay Singh. On May 10, 2011, the deceased’s mother (PW-1) filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that her son was murdered due to old enmity by the appellants, their father, and two other individuals. However, the next day, in her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, PW-1 stated that the appellants were not involved and that she had named them incorrectly in the FIR. She mentioned that her son was last seen with Mahendra Singh, who had taken him on the pretext of repaying a debt and facilitating a compromise with other accused persons. Two other witnesses also corroborated that the appellants had no role in the crime. The police, after investigation, filed a chargesheet on June 22, 2011, naming four accused but not including the appellants.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 10 May 2011 | FIR lodged by PW-1, alleging murder of her son by the appellants, their father, and two others. |
| 11 May 2011 | PW-1’s statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, stating appellants were not involved. |
| 22 June 2011 | Chargesheet filed, not naming the appellants as accused. |
| 20 May 2016 | PW-1 examined in court, stating she named the appellants based on suspicion. |
| 31 July 2017 | Assistant Public Prosecutor files application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellants. |
| 24 August 2017 | Trial Court allows the application and summons the appellants. |
| 04 April 2023 | High Court dismisses the appellants’ petition challenging the summoning order. |
| 02 May 2024 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and sets aside the summoning order. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court, based on PW-1’s statement during her examination, allowed an application by the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the appellants to face trial. The Trial Court noted that if evidence during trial shows that a person not named as an accused has a role to play in the commission of the offence, then he could be summoned to face trial. The appellants challenged this order before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which dismissed their petition, stating that at the stage of Section 482, the Court is only supposed to see if there exists a prima-facie case. This order of the High Court was then challenged before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined Section 319 of the CrPC, which deals with the power of a court to proceed against persons who appear to be guilty of an offence during an inquiry or trial. Section 319(1) of the 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.”
The Court also referred to the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, which clarified the conditions for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. The Court noted that the word “appears” in Section 319 implies a lesser degree of probability than proof. However, the court must be satisfied that the evidence, if unrebutted, may lead to the conviction of the person sought to be added as an accused. The degree of satisfaction required is stricter than at the time of taking cognizance or framing charges.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that the summoning order under Section 319 CrPC was not justified as the evidence against them was weak and inconsistent.
- They emphasized that PW-1, the primary witness, had initially named them in the FIR due to old enmity but later clarified in her Section 161 statement that they were not involved.
- The appellants also pointed out that the chargesheet did not include their names as accused, and no other witness had implicated them.
Respondent State’s Arguments:
- The State contended that PW-1’s deposition before the Trial Court, where she again named the appellants, was sufficient to invoke Section 319 of the CrPC.
- The State argued that the Trial Court had correctly applied the law by summoning the appellants based on the evidence presented during the trial.
- The State also argued that even if the trial has abated against the original accused, there is no bar in summoning the appellants and starting the trial afresh.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent State) |
|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Summoning under Section 319 CrPC |
✓ PW-1’s initial FIR naming them was due to old enmity. ✓ PW-1 later clarified in her Section 161 statement that they were not involved. ✓ Chargesheet did not include them as accused. ✓ No other witness implicated them. |
✓ PW-1’s deposition before the Trial Court naming the appellants is sufficient. ✓ Trial Court correctly applied the law. ✓ Trial can start afresh even if abated against original accused. |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants’ argument was innovative in highlighting the inconsistencies in the primary witness’s statements and emphasizing that mere suspicion is not enough to invoke the extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC. The respondent’s argument was based on the traditional view of relying on the witness’s deposition during the trial.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether the power under Section 319 CrPC has been properly exercised in light of the facts of the present case and evidence on record.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the power under Section 319 CrPC has been properly exercised in light of the facts of the present case and evidence on record. | No. The Court held that the power was not properly exercised. | The Court found that the evidence against the appellants was inconsistent and not strong enough to justify summoning them under Section 319 CrPC. The primary witness’s statements were contradictory, and no other witness implicated the appellants. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Principles for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC, emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence. |
| Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Meaning of the word “appears” in Section 319 CrPC, indicating a lesser degree of probability than proof. |
| Ram Singh v. Ram Niwas, (2009) 14 SCC 25 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Importance of the word “appear” in Section 319 CrPC, requiring exceptional circumstances to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. |
| Gurmail Singh v. State of UP, (2022) 10 SCC 684 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Position of law that even if the trial has abated against existing accused, there is no bar in summoning other accused and starting the trial afresh. |
The Court also considered Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which deals with the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the summoning order passed by the Trial Court and the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the evidence against the appellants was not sufficient to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC. The Court noted that the primary witness, PW-1, was not an eyewitness and her statements were inconsistent. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and reliable evidence, not mere suspicion.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that PW-1’s statements were inconsistent and insufficient for summoning under Section 319 CrPC. | Accepted. The Court agreed that PW-1’s contradictory statements and lack of eyewitness status did not warrant summoning the appellants. |
| Respondent State’s submission that PW-1’s deposition before the Trial Court was sufficient to invoke Section 319 CrPC. | Rejected. The Court held that the deposition, when viewed in light of PW-1’s earlier contradictory statements, did not meet the threshold for summoning under Section 319 CrPC. |
| Respondent State’s submission that the trial can start afresh even if abated against original accused. | Accepted. The Court acknowledged this position of law as settled but emphasized that the summoning order itself was not valid in this case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92* to reiterate that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and reliable evidence.
- The Court followed Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094* and Ram Singh v. Ram Niwas, (2009) 14 SCC 25* to clarify the meaning of the word “appears” in Section 319 CrPC, emphasizing that it requires a higher degree of satisfaction than a mere prima facie case.
- The Court also cited Gurmail Singh v. State of UP, (2022) 10 SCC 684* to acknowledge that there is no bar in summoning other accused and starting the trial afresh even if the trial has abated against the original accused.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the inconsistencies in the statements of the primary witness (PW-1) and the lack of corroborating evidence. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary one that should be exercised judiciously, based on strong evidence, not mere suspicion. The Court noted that PW-1 was not an eyewitness to the crime and had contradicted her initial FIR statement in her subsequent statement under Section 161 CrPC. Additionally, no other witness implicated the appellants, and the chargesheet did not include their names as accused. The Court found that the trial court had erred in summoning the appellants based on a weak and contradictory testimony.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inconsistency in PW-1’s statements | 35% |
| Lack of corroborating evidence | 30% |
| PW-1 not being an eyewitness | 20% |
| Extraordinary nature of power under Section 319 CrPC | 15% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The court’s decision was primarily driven by the factual inconsistencies in the evidence presented, with a lesser emphasis on the legal aspects of Section 319 CrPC.
Logical Reasoning
The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of strong evidence. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and reliable evidence, not mere suspicion. The final decision was based on the principle that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not meet the required threshold for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
The Court’s decision is based on the following reasons:
- The primary witness, PW-1, was not an eyewitness to the crime.
- PW-1’s statements were contradictory and inconsistent. She initially named the appellants in the FIR due to old enmity but later clarified that they were not involved.
- The chargesheet did not include the appellants as accused.
- No other witness implicated the appellants in the commission of the crime.
- The evidence presented did not meet the higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC, which requires strong and reliable evidence.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “My old enmity with accused Bacha Singh has been going on for the last 11 years and on the basis of suspicion, I had written the names of Shankar and Vishal in the FIR.”
- “The names of Shankar Singh and Vishal Singhs sons of Bachha Singh, which I have written in the FIR, have been written by me falsely without collecting full information.”
- “Therefore, the change of circumstance which the prosecution seeks to contend on the basis of PW -1’s deposition does not satisfy the requirement of Section 319 at all.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous by the two-judge bench.
The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving Section 319 CrPC. It emphasizes that the power to summon additional accused should be exercised judiciously and only when there is strong and reliable evidence, not mere suspicion or inconsistent testimonies. This decision reinforces the principle that the court must be satisfied that the evidence, if unrebutted, may lead to the conviction of the person sought to be added as an accused.
Key Takeaways
- The power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and reliable evidence.
- Inconsistent statements by a witness, especially when they are not an eyewitness, are not sufficient grounds for summoning additional accused.
- The court must be satisfied that the evidence, if unrebutted, may lead to the conviction of the person sought to be added as an accused.
- The decision reinforces the need for a higher degree of satisfaction than a mere prima facie case when exercising power under Section 319 CrPC.
- This judgment will likely lead to more cautious application of Section 319 CrPC by trial courts.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court dated 24.08.2017 and the judgment of the High Court dated 04.04.2023 dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 CrPC should not be exercised based on inconsistent and weak evidence. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence before summoning additional accused. This decision clarifies and reinforces the existing legal position on the application of Section 319 CrPC.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Shankar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. clarifies the threshold for summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that a mere suspicion or inconsistent statements by a witness are not sufficient grounds for summoning additional accused. The power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised judiciously, based on strong and reliable evidence that, if unrebutted, may lead to the conviction of the person sought to be added as an accused. This judgment reinforces the need for a higher degree of satisfaction before exercising this extraordinary power.