Supreme Court Rejects Summons of Additional Accused under Section 319 CrPC: Periyasami & Ors. vs. S. Nallasamy (2019)

Date of the Judgment: March 14, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 249
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a trial court summon additional individuals as accused based solely on witness statements during trial, even if their names were not in the initial police report or statements? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning a family dispute that escalated into criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires more than just a prima facie case; it demands strong and cogent evidence. This judgment clarifies the threshold for invoking this power, ensuring it is not used lightly, especially in cases with underlying personal disputes. The judgment was authored by Hemant Gupta, J. and concurred by Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on May 29, 2011, following a High Court of Judicature at Madras order on May 26, 2011. The complainant, S. Nallasamy, alleged that on May 5, 2011, his in-laws and their relatives, totaling about 15 women and 35 men, forcibly entered his house. They were allegedly armed with weapons and demanded Rs. 30 lakhs as maintenance. The complainant also alleged that they stole turmeric bundles. Initially, only 11 individuals were named in the FIR.

The complainant’s wife, Thangamani, had a history of marital discord, often staying at her father’s house. The complainant alleged that his in-laws threatened him and demanded money, stating they would file a dowry case against him and his mother if their demands were not met. After the incident, the police investigation led to a report against the 11 named individuals, but the complainant later sought further investigation and filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was dismissed.

During the trial, the complainant (PW1) and other witnesses (PW2, PW3 and PW4) mentioned additional individuals as being part of the group that trespassed and attacked him. Based on this, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon 20 additional individuals as accused. The trial court rejected this application, but the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially dismissed the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, citing that the names of the proposed accused were not in the FIR or the statements recorded during the investigation. The trial court also noted that the complainant had not specified the specific crimes committed by each proposed accused, and that the application was based on doubt rather than concrete evidence. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, stating that the complainant and other witnesses had clearly named the additional individuals during their testimonies. The High Court held that the trial court had failed to consider the evidence and the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which states:

“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.—(1) 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 and try individuals not initially named as accused if the evidence presented during the trial suggests their involvement in the crime. The Supreme Court has clarified that this power is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. The court also considered Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the police report after investigation.

The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) under which the FIR was registered are:

• Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 448, IPC: Punishment for house-trespass.
• Section 294(b), IPC: Punishment for obscene acts and songs.
• Section 506, IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants (Original Accused)

• The appellants argued that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence is available. They relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], which held that the evidence should be more than a prima facie case but less than what is required for conviction.
• They contended that the High Court erred in summoning additional accused based merely on witness statements, without any prior identification in the FIR or statements during investigation.
• The appellants pointed out that the complainant’s allegations were vague and could be used to include any person, especially given the underlying matrimonial dispute.
• They also cited Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Anr., where the Supreme Court set aside the summoning of additional accused based on witness statements, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence.

Arguments of the Respondent (Complainant)

• The respondent argued that the statements of the complainant (PW1) and other witnesses (PW2, PW3 and PW4) during the trial clearly implicated the additional individuals.
• The respondent contended that the trial court had failed to consider this evidence and the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The respondent asserted that the High Court correctly reversed the trial court’s decision, as the evidence presented during the trial warranted the summoning of additional accused.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the trial court and directing the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 based solely on the statements of witnesses during the trial.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Cases

• Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] – Supreme Court of India: This Constitution Bench judgment clarified 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, more than a prima facie case but less than what is required for conviction.
• Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Anr. – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principle that additional accused cannot be summoned merely on the basis of witness statements without substantial evidence.

Legal Provisions

• Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Empowers the court to proceed against persons not initially accused, if evidence suggests their involvement in the crime.
• Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the police report after investigation.
• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 448, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for house-trespass.
• Section 294(b), Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for obscene acts and songs.
• Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for criminal intimidation.

Authority Analysis Table

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

How Authorities were viewed by the Court

The Court relied heavily on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], stating that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an extraordinary one to be exercised sparingly, and only when there is strong evidence. The court also cited Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Anr., to highlight that the summoning of additional accused cannot be based solely on witness statements. The court interpreted Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to mean that there should be a high threshold of evidence to summon additional accused.

The Court held that the High Court was not correct in setting aside the order of the Magistrate and held that the order of the trial court was correct.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of strong and cogent evidence against the additional accused. The court emphasized the following points:

• The initial FIR and statements during investigation did not mention the names or descriptions of the additional accused.
• The complainant’s allegations were vague and could be used to implicate anyone.
• The power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be used sparingly, especially in cases with underlying personal disputes.
• The evidence required for summoning additional accused must be more than a prima facie case, but less than what is required for conviction.

The Court was also mindful of the potential misuse of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in cases where there are underlying disputes, such as matrimonial conflicts.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case (60%) than the legal considerations (40%). The court focused on the specific details of the FIR, the investigation, and the witness statements to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to summon the additional accused.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the witness statements were sufficient to summon additional accused. However, the court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an extraordinary one that should be exercised sparingly, and only when there is strong evidence. The court also considered the potential for misuse of this provision in cases where there are underlying disputes, such as matrimonial conflicts.

The court’s decision was clear: the High Court’s order was incorrect, and the trial court’s decision was correct. The Supreme Court held that the additional accused could not be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the absence of strong and cogent evidence.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The lack of specific names or descriptions of the additional accused in the FIR and initial statements.
• The vagueness of the allegations which could include anyone.
• The need for more than a prima facie case to summon additional accused.
• The potential for misuse of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in cases of personal disputes.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92]: “Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.”

The Court also quoted from Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Anr.: “The Court has to consider substance of the evidence, which has come before it and as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra) has to apply the test, i.e., “more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction”.”

The court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• The power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon additional accused is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously.
• Strong and cogent evidence, beyond a mere prima facie case, is required to summon additional accused.
• Witness statements during trial, without prior identification in the FIR or investigation, are generally not sufficient to invoke Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Courts should be cautious when applying Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in cases with underlying personal disputes.
• The threshold for summoning additional accused is higher than the threshold for framing charges but less than the threshold for conviction.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of the trial court. The application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon additional accused was dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon additional accused should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence. This judgment reinforces the principles established in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] and Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Anr., clarifying the threshold required for invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This judgment does not change the previous positions of law but rather clarifies and reiterates the principles already established.

Conclusion

In Periyasami & Ors. vs. S. Nallasamy, the Supreme Court of India clarified the conditions under which additional individuals can be summoned as accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court emphasized that this power should not be used lightly and requires strong and cogent evidence, not just witness statements during trial. The judgment reinforces the need for a cautious approach, especially in cases involving personal disputes, and provides clarity on the threshold for invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.