Date of the Judgment: June 2, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 576
Judges: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal
Can a trial court summon a person as an accused based on evidence presented during the trial, even if that person was not initially named in the FIR? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to allow the summoning of an additional accused based on the testimonies of the complainant and his wife during the trial. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Case Background
A First Information Report (FIR) was filed at the Khalilabad Police Station, District Sant Kabir Nagar, alleging offences under Sections 419, 420, 323, 406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the 1989 Act). The complainant stated that Dharmendra Nath Mishra, his brother, and an unknown person had assaulted and abused him and his wife. The police filed a charge sheet against Dharmendra only. During the trial, the complainant and his wife testified that both Dharmendra and the appellant, Jitendra Nath Mishra, along with an unknown person, had assaulted and abused them using casteist slurs. Based on this testimony, the Special Court summoned Jitendra Nath Mishra as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 30, 2017 | Alleged incident of assault and abuse occurred. |
| February 28, 2018 | Complaint lodged with the Khalilabad Police Station. |
| October 16, 2021 | Special Court summoned Jitendra Nath Mishra under Section 319 CrPC. |
| June 1, 2022 | Allahabad High Court dismissed Jitendra Nath Mishra’s appeal. |
| June 2, 2023 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Jitendra Nath Mishra. |
Course of Proceedings
The Special Court, constituted under the 1989 Act, took cognizance of the offense and framed charges against Dharmendra. During the trial, based on the testimonies of the complainant (PW-1) and his wife (PW-2), the Special Court invoked Section 319 of the CrPC and summoned Jitendra Nath Mishra as an additional accused. Jitendra Nath Mishra challenged this summoning order before the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed his appeal. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section empowers a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense. The court quoted the provision: “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.”
- Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This section provides for appeals against orders of the Special Court.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Jitendra Nath Mishra):
- The FIR was filed with significant delay, casting doubt on its veracity. The incident allegedly occurred on September 30, 2017, but the complaint was lodged only on February 28, 2018.
- There were material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 stated that the accused arrived in a car, while PW-2 claimed they arrived on two motorcycles.
- The appellant was known to the complainant since 2015, yet he was not named in the FIR. His name was introduced only during the trial, suggesting an embellishment to harass him.
- The complainant vaguely alleged that Dharmendra’s brother was involved without naming the appellant, despite knowing him well.
- No independent public witnesses were cited to support the allegations of assault and abuse in a public place.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Uttar Pradesh):
- The law regarding summoning an additional accused is well-established, referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab: (2014) 3 SCC 92.
- The Special Court had duly considered the evidence of the complainant and his wife before summoning the appellant under Section 319 of the CrPC.
- The points raised by the appellant are matters of defense that can be argued before the Special Court during the trial.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant) | Sub-Submission (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Delay in Filing FIR | The FIR was filed after a significant delay without proper explanation, indicating falsity. | – |
| Contradictory Testimonies | PW-1 and PW-2 gave contradictory accounts of how the accused arrived at the scene. | – |
| Omission of Appellant’s Name in FIR | The appellant was known to the complainant, yet his name was not mentioned in the FIR. | – |
| Lack of Public Witnesses | No public witnesses were cited to support the allegations of assault in a public place. | – |
| Validity of Summoning Order | The summoning order under Section 319 CrPC was arbitrary and not based on sufficient evidence. | The Special Court duly considered the evidence before summoning the appellant, as per Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab. |
| Points of Defence | – | The points raised by the appellant are matters of defense to be argued during the trial. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the evidence adduced by the complainant and his wife during their depositions justified the Special Court’s decision to summon the appellant under Section 319 of the CrPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence justified summoning under Section 319 CrPC | Upheld the summoning order | The court found that the evidence of the complainant and his wife, although with some contradictions, sufficiently indicated the appellant’s involvement to warrant summoning him under Section 319 CrPC. The court noted that the FIR did mention the involvement of Dharmendra’s brother, and the appellant was identified as that brother during the trial. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab: (2014) 3 SCC 92 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | The court referred to this case to reiterate the principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC. It emphasized that the satisfaction required for summoning an additional accused is more than a prima facie case but less than what is required for conviction. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission: The FIR was delayed and contained contradictions. | The Court did not explicitly reject this argument but noted that it could be raised as a defense during the trial. |
| Appellant’s submission: The appellant’s name was not in the FIR, and his implication was an embellishment. | The Court held that the FIR did mention the involvement of Dharmendra’s brother, and the appellant was identified as that brother during the trial. The Court stated that this was sufficient for the Special Court to form the requisite satisfaction to summon him under Section 319 CrPC. |
| Appellant’s submission: No public witnesses were cited. | The Court did not explicitly reject this argument but noted that it could be raised as a defense during the trial. |
| Respondent’s submission: The law regarding summoning an additional accused is well-established as per Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab. | The Court agreed with the respondent and held that the Special Court had duly considered the evidence before summoning the appellant, as per the principles laid down in the cited case. |
| Respondent’s submission: The points raised by the appellant are matters of defense to be argued during the trial. | The Court agreed with the respondent and held that the points raised by the appellant are matters of defense to be argued during the trial. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab: (2014) 3 SCC 92 | The Court relied on this authority to reiterate that the satisfaction required for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is more than a prima facie case but less than what is required for conviction. The Court found that the Special Court had formed the requisite satisfaction before summoning the appellant. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair trial and to prevent any potential injustice. The Court emphasized that the Special Court had formed the necessary satisfaction based on the evidence presented by the complainant and his wife. The Court also noted that the appellant’s arguments were more appropriate as defenses during the trial rather than grounds for quashing the summoning order.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fair Trial | 40% |
| Evidence of Complainant and Wife | 30% |
| Adherence to Legal Standards | 20% |
| Defense Arguments | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court reasoned that while the FIR did not name the appellant, it did mention the involvement of Dharmendra’s brother. The testimonies of the complainant and his wife identified the appellant as that brother. The court noted that the Special Court had considered this evidence and formed the necessary satisfaction before summoning the appellant. The court also noted that the points raised by the appellant were matters of defense that could be argued during the trial.
The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment: “Therefore, what is essential for exercise of the power under section 319, Cr. PC is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned.”
The Court further stated, “For the purpose of passing an order under section 319, Cr. PC, it is sufficient to form a satisfaction of the nature indicated in paragraph 106 of the decision in Hardeep Singh (supra).”
The Court also mentioned, “We are satisfied, on facts and in the circumstances, that the Special Court formed the requisite satisfaction prior to summoning the appellant to face trial with Dharmendra.”
Key Takeaways
- A trial court can summon a person as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC based on evidence presented during the trial, even if that person was not named in the FIR.
- The satisfaction required for summoning an additional accused is more than a prima facie case but less than what is required for conviction.
- Points such as delay in filing an FIR, contradictions in testimonies, and lack of public witnesses can be raised as defenses during the trial.
- The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring a fair trial and preventing potential injustice.
Directions
The Special Court was directed to expedite the trial, proceeding uninfluenced by the fact that its order under Section 319 CrPC had been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court directed that all points raised by the appellant, as well as any other points, should be given due consideration during the trial.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a trial court can summon a person as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC based on evidence presented during the trial, even if that person was not named in the FIR, provided the court forms the requisite satisfaction based on the evidence on record. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, clarifying that the satisfaction required for summoning an additional accused is more than a prima facie case but less than what is required for conviction. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case provides a specific application of the existing principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the summoning of Jitendra Nath Mishra as an additional accused. The Court emphasized that the Special Court had correctly exercised its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC based on the evidence presented during the trial. The Court also clarified that the appellant’s arguments were matters of defense to be raised during the trial. This judgment reinforces the importance of ensuring a fair trial while also allowing for the inclusion of additional accused based on evidence presented during the trial.
Category
- Criminal Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Section 3(1)(r), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Section 3(1)(s), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FAQ
Q: Can a person be summoned as an accused even if their name is not in the FIR?
A: Yes, under Section 319 of the CrPC, a court can summon a person as an accused if evidence during the trial suggests their involvement in the crime, even if they were not named in the FIR.
Q: What is the level of evidence required to summon an additional accused?
A: The court must be satisfied that the evidence indicates the person’s involvement in the crime. This level of satisfaction is more than a prima facie case but less than what is needed for a conviction.
Q: What should a person do if they are summoned as an additional accused?
A: The person can raise their defenses during the trial, such as challenging the credibility of the evidence, pointing out contradictions, or presenting their own witnesses.
Q: What does Section 319 of the CrPC say?
A: Section 319 of the CrPC empowers a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial.