LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trial court can summon a person as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on evidence presented during the trial.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Shiv Prakash Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
[Judgment Date]: 23 July 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 23 July 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 713
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a person be summoned as an additional accused during a trial based on the evidence presented? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the invocation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court examined whether the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad correctly upheld the trial court’s decision not to summon a person as an additional accused. The bench comprised of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna. The judgment was authored by Justice R. Banumathi.
Case Background
On September 6, 2013, at approximately 9:00 AM, Shiv Prakash Mishra (PW-1), the complainant, alleged that Subhash Chandra Shukla (respondent No. 2) along with Sashendra Shukla, Devender Shukla, Lakshmi Kant Shukla, and Rahul Shukla formed an unlawful assembly and came to his house. They began abusing him due to a prior dispute. The complainant’s elder brothers, Sangam Lal Mishra and Sunil Kumar Mishra, intervened. Sashendra Shukla fired a pistol, intending to harm Sunil Kumar Mishra. Other accused individuals assaulted Sangam Lal Mishra with sticks, while Subhash Chandra Shukla allegedly struck him on the head with the butt of a homemade pistol. Both Sangam Lal Mishra and Sunil Kumar Mishra sustained injuries. Sangam Lal Mishra later died from his injuries.
Shiv Prakash Mishra (PW-1) filed a complaint at the Meja Police Station at 6:15 PM on the same day. Based on the complaint, FIR No. 275/2013 was registered against the five accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The investigation was initially conducted by the local police and later transferred to the C.B.C.I.D. The C.B.C.I.D. filed a charge sheet on September 19, 2014, against Sashendra Shukla, Devender Shukla, and Laxmi Kant Shukla. A supplementary charge sheet was filed against Rahul Shukla on October 15, 2014. Notably, Subhash Chandra Shukla’s name was omitted from both charge sheets.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 6, 2013, 9:00 AM | Incident occurred; complainant alleges assault by the accused. |
| September 6, 2013, 6:15 PM | Shiv Prakash Mishra (PW-1) files a complaint at Meja Police Station. |
| September 6, 2013 | FIR No. 275/2013 registered against five accused. |
| September 19, 2014 | C.B.C.I.D. files charge sheet against Sashendra Shukla, Devender Shukla, and Laxmi Kant Shukla. |
| October 15, 2014 | Supplementary charge sheet filed against Rahul Shukla. |
| August 2016 | Trial commences in Sessions Trial No. 1329/2014. |
| October 3, 2017 | PW-1 files petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead Subhash Chandra Shukla as an accused. |
| August 28, 2018 | Trial court dismisses the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. |
| December 4, 2018 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirms the trial court’s order. |
| July 23, 2019 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The case was committed to the Sessions Court, and charges were framed in Sessions Trial No. 1329/2014. The trial began around August 2016. Witnesses Shiv Prakash Mishra (PW-1), Anand Kumar Mishra (PW-2), and Sunil Kumar Mishra (PW-3) were examined. On October 3, 2017, PW-1 filed a petition under Section 319 of the CrPC to include Subhash Chandra Shukla as an accused. The trial court dismissed this application on August 28, 2018, citing contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the role of Subhash Chandra Shukla. The trial court also noted that Subhash Chandra Shukla’s presence at his workplace in Mirzapur was verified, casting doubt on his presence at the crime scene. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad also dismissed the revision petition, agreeing that there was insufficient evidence to summon Subhash Chandra Shukla as an accused. The complainant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The central legal provision in this case is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 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.
…
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.”
This section empowers the court to summon any person as an accused during the trial if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense for which they could be tried alongside the existing accused. The Supreme Court has clarified that this power is discretionary and should be used sparingly, requiring a higher standard of proof than what is needed for framing charges against the original accused.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The complainant argued that Subhash Chandra Shukla’s name was clearly mentioned in the FIR (First Information Report) and that the prosecution witnesses had directly implicated him in the attack on the deceased.
- It was contended that the Investigating Officer improperly removed Subhash Chandra Shukla’s name from the charge sheet based on the statement of the accused who was working as a Junior Engineer in Mirzapur.
- The appellant emphasized that the distance between the crime scene and Mirzapur was only 30 kilometers, making it plausible for Subhash Chandra Shukla to be present at the scene.
- The appellant relied on the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 who specifically attributed overt acts to respondent No.2.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the C.B.C.I.D. conducted a thorough investigation and filed charge sheets against other accused persons after concluding that Subhash Chandra Shukla was not involved in the incident.
- The state contended that the Investigating Officer examined multiple witnesses from Subhash Chandra Shukla’s workplace who confirmed his presence at work during the time of the incident.
- The state relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706, which emphasize that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only when there are compelling reasons.
- The state argued that merely having some evidence implicating a person is not sufficient to summon them as an additional accused.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Inclusion of Respondent No. 2 as Accused | Name mentioned in FIR, direct evidence from witnesses, proximity of work place | Appellant |
| Exclusion of Respondent No. 2 as Accused | Thorough investigation, witness statements from work place, no compelling evidence | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the trial court’s decision not to summon the second respondent, Subhash Chandra Shukla, as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the trial court’s decision not to summon the second respondent, Subhash Chandra Shukla, as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. | The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the trial court and the High Court were correct in holding that respondent No. 2 cannot be summoned as an accused. The court noted the contradictory statements of the witnesses and the evidence suggesting that respondent No. 2 was not present at the scene of the crime. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and another (2008) 14 SCC 51 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The power of summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly. |
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and an extraordinary power which is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. |
| Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The degree of satisfaction required to summon an additional accused is more than the degree warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s argument that Subhash Chandra Shukla’s name was in the FIR and witnesses implicated him. | The Court acknowledged the mention in the FIR but noted the contradictory statements of witnesses and the evidence suggesting his absence from the crime scene. The Court did not find this argument compelling enough to warrant summoning him as an accused. |
| Appellant’s argument that the Investigating Officer improperly removed Subhash Chandra Shukla’s name. | The Court noted that the Investigating Officer had recorded statements of witnesses who stated that Subhash Chandra Shukla was not present at the crime scene, and was at his workplace. |
| Appellant’s argument that the distance between the crime scene and Mirzapur was only 30 kilometers. | The Court did not find this argument sufficient to warrant summoning Subhash Chandra Shukla as an accused, given the evidence suggesting his presence at his workplace. |
| Respondent’s argument that the C.B.C.I.D. conducted a thorough investigation. | The Court accepted this argument, noting that the Investigating Officer had recorded statements of witnesses who stated that Subhash Chandra Shukla was not present at the crime scene, and was at his workplace. |
| Respondent’s argument that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly. | The Court agreed with this argument, citing previous judgments that emphasize the need for strong and cogent evidence to summon an additional accused. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and another [CITATION], stating that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly.
- The Court followed Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others [CITATION], reiterating that the power under Section 319 is discretionary and extraordinary, to be used only when circumstances warrant.
- The Court applied the principles from Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION], emphasizing that a higher degree of satisfaction is required to summon an additional accused than what is needed for framing charges against the original accused.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Contradictory Statements: The Court noted significant contradictions in the statements of key witnesses, particularly PW-1, regarding the presence and actions of Subhash Chandra Shukla.
- Investigative Findings: The Court considered the findings of the Investigating Officer, who, after examining multiple witnesses, concluded that Subhash Chandra Shukla was not present at the scene of the crime but was at his workplace.
- Stringent Standard for Section 319 CrPC: The Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC to summon an additional accused must be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence, not merely on suspicion or probability.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Contradictory Statements of Witnesses | 40% |
| Investigative Findings | 35% |
| Stringent Standard for Section 319 CrPC | 25% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court did not find sufficient evidence to warrant summoning Subhash Chandra Shukla as an additional accused. The court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC is not to be exercised lightly, and that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold required to invoke this power.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“The standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against the accused person.”
“It is not, therefore, that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of such person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be used by the court.”
“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.”
Key Takeaways
- The power under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon an additional accused is discretionary and should be used sparingly.
- A higher standard of proof is required to summon an additional accused than what is needed for framing charges against the original accused.
- Contradictory statements of witnesses and evidence suggesting the absence of a person from the crime scene can be valid grounds for not summoning them as an additional accused.
- Investigative findings play a crucial role in determining whether to summon an additional accused.
- The courts should not act on mere suspicion or probability but on strong and cogent evidence.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial in S.T. No. 26 of 2015 in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that the findings in this appeal and the High Court’s revision should be construed only for the purpose of the appeal and revision and should not be seen as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the established legal position that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is an extraordinary one and must be exercised cautiously. The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power to summon an additional accused during trial should not be exercised lightly, and there must be strong and cogent evidence to justify such action. This decision does not change the previous position of law but rather reaffirms it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the trial court and the High Court not to summon Subhash Chandra Shukla as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized the need for strong and cogent evidence, the discretionary nature of the power under Section 319, and the importance of considering the findings of the investigating officer and the contradictory nature of the witness statements. This judgment reinforces the established legal principles regarding the summoning of additional accused during trial.
Category
- Criminal Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FAQ
Q: What is Section 319 of the CrPC?
A: Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers a court to summon any person as an additional accused during a trial if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense for which they could be tried alongside the existing accused.
Q: When can a court summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC?
A: A court can summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC if, during the trial, it appears from the evidence that a person not already accused has committed an offense for which they could be tried with the existing accused. This power is discretionary and should be used sparingly.
Q: What standard of proof is required to summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC?
A: The standard of proof required to summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is higher than that required for framing charges against the original accused. The court needs strong and cogent evidence, not just mere suspicion or probability, to exercise this power.
Q: What does the Supreme Court say about the use of Section 319 CrPC?
A: The Supreme Court has consistently held that the power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be used sparingly and only when the circumstances of the case warrant it. The court must be convinced by strong and cogent evidence, not just mere probability, that the person has committed the offense.
Q: What should one do if they believe someone else should be added as an accused during a trial?
A: If you believe someone else should be added as an accused during a trial, you can file an application under Section 319 CrPC. However, you must present strong and cogent evidence to convince the court that the person has committed an offense and should be tried alongside the existing accused.