LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trial court can summon individuals as accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on evidence presented during the trial, even if those individuals were not initially charge-sheeted.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Rajesh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana

Judgment Date: 1 May 2019

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 1 May 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 465
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a court summon individuals to face trial based on testimonies given during the trial, even if they were not initially named in the charge sheet? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question regarding the powers of a trial court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a court can summon additional accused persons based on evidence presented during the trial, ensuring that all those potentially involved in a crime are brought to justice. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, with the majority opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

On June 12, 2016, Hukum Singh filed a First Information Report (FIR) at Police Station Sadar, Panipat, against ten individuals, including the appellants, alleging offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 302, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR stated that on the same day, at approximately 1:30 PM, Hukum Singh, his son Bhajji, and Hari (son of Parkash) were traveling on a tractor when they were attacked. Bhajji and Hari had stopped to pick up Bhajji’s motorcycle, which was parked near a shop.

According to the FIR, several individuals arrived on motorcycles, armed with swords, pistols, hockey sticks, iron bars, and gandasi. Ravit (son of Ramesh) was armed with a hockey stick, Vicky (son of Jaswant) with a wooden baton, Sheela (son of Paras) with a gandasi, Sumit (son of Jagdish) with a pistol, Rinku (son of Rai Singh) with an iron bar, Sunder (son of Om Singh) with a wooden baton, Rajesh (son of Prem) with a sword, Jagdish (son of Devi Singh) with a lathi, Tejpal (son of Nar Singh) with an iron bar, Joni (son of Sahab Singh) with a wooden handle of a spade, and Sachin (son of Ruhla Ram) with a sword. Rajesh (son of Prem) allegedly incited the others to attack Bhajji and Hari due to a dispute over panchayat land.

During the attack, Bhajji and Hari sustained injuries. Hari later died on June 14, 2016, while undergoing treatment at Prem Hospital. The police arrested all the accused named in the FIR. However, after investigation, the Investigating Officer concluded that the appellants were not present at the scene of the incident and filed a charge sheet under Section 173(2) of the CrPC against only four of the ten accused. Subsequently, a further investigation was conducted, which also found the appellants to be innocent. The Station House Officer (SHO) then filed applications for the discharge of the appellants, and the Magistrate ordered their release.

During the trial against the four charge-sheeted accused, the prosecution examined two witnesses: P.W.1 (Hukum Singh, the original informant) and P.W.2 (Bhajji, the injured eyewitness). Both witnesses testified that the appellants were present at the scene of the crime and participated in the attack. Based on this testimony, the original informant submitted an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the appellants to face trial. The Magistrate allowed the application, and the High Court upheld this decision.

Timeline:

Date Event
12 June 2016 Hukum Singh files FIR No. 180 at Police Station Sadar, Panipat, against ten accused, including the appellants.
12 June 2016 Alleged incident occurs at approximately 1:30 PM, where Hukum Singh’s son Bhajji and Hari (son of Parkash) are attacked.
14 June 2016 Hari (son of Parkash) dies from injuries sustained in the attack.
Post-incident All accused named in the FIR are arrested.
Post-arrest Investigating Officer concludes that six appellants were not present at the scene and files a charge sheet against only four accused.
Post-investigation Further investigation is conducted, which also finds the appellants to be innocent.
01 September 2016 and 28 October 2016 SHO, Police Station Sadar, files applications for discharge of the appellants, stating they were not involved in the incident. The Magistrate directs the release of the appellants.
During Trial Prosecution examines P.W.1 (Hukum Singh) and P.W.2 (Bhajji), who testify that the appellants were present and participated in the attack.
Post-testimony The original informant (P.W.1) submits an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the appellants to face trial.
28 October 2017 The Magistrate orders the summoning of the appellants to face trial under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 302, 307, and 506 of the IPC.
19 December 2018 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismisses the appellants’ revision petition and upholds the Magistrate’s order.
1 May 2019 The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the summoning of the appellants to face trial.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Proceedings Despite Pending Criminal Case: Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Rabindra Kumar Bharti (2022)

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense. The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are:

  • Section 148, IPC: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
  • Section 149, IPC: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
  • Section 323, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 324, IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
  • Section 325, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
  • Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
  • Section 307, IPC: Attempt to murder.
  • Section 506, IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation.

Section 319 of the CrPC is designed to ensure that all individuals involved in a crime are brought to justice, even if they were not initially charge-sheeted by the investigating agency. The Supreme Court has clarified that this power can be invoked based on evidence presented during the trial, including the examination-in-chief of witnesses.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

  • The appellants argued that the Magistrate erred in summoning them under Section 319 of the CrPC. They contended that this power is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly, as per Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92.
  • They submitted that the Magistrate acted mechanically, without strong evidence.
  • The investigating agency had thoroughly investigated the case and concluded that the appellants were not present at the scene. The police filed a charge sheet against only four accused and later sought the discharge of the appellants, which was granted by the Magistrate.
  • The appellants argued that the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were mere reiterations of their statements to the police and should not be the basis for summoning them. They cited Bijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706, stating that verbal testimony without supporting material is insufficient for summoning an accused under Section 319 of the CrPC.
  • They argued that the Magistrate should have considered the investigation findings that showed the appellants were not present at the crime scene.

State of Haryana’s Arguments:

  • The State argued that the Magistrate’s order and the High Court’s judgment were correct.
  • The State clarified that the Magistrate did not discharge the appellants but merely released them from custody.
  • The State pointed out that the Magistrate did not formally accept the closure report against the appellants, and the complainant was not given an opportunity to object, as required by Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537.
  • The State emphasized that P.W.1 and P.W.2, the informant and injured eyewitness, respectively, clearly stated that the appellants were present and participated in the crime.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Main Submission Sub-Submissions (Appellants) Sub-Submissions (State)
Improper exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC ✓ Power is discretionary and extraordinary.
✓ Magistrate acted mechanically without strong evidence.
✓ Investigating agency found appellants innocent.
✓ Depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are mere reiterations.
✓ Magistrate should have considered investigation findings. 		✓ Magistrate’s order and High Court’s judgment were correct.
✓ Magistrate did not discharge appellants, only released them from custody.
✓ Magistrate did not formally accept closure report.
✓ P.W.1 and P.W.2 testified to appellants’ involvement.
Discharge of Appellants ✓ Magistrate discharged the appellants based on police report. ✓ Magistrate only released appellants from custody, not a formal discharge.
Evidentiary Basis ✓ Depositions are mere reiterations of earlier statements. ✓ P.W.1 and P.W.2 gave specific testimony against the appellants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

  1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in summoning the appellants to face trial in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the CrPC, given the facts and circumstances of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Issue Court’s Decision Reasoning
Whether the Trial Court was justified in summoning the appellants under Section 319 of the CrPC? Yes, the Trial Court was justified. The Court relied on the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who specifically implicated the appellants in the crime. The court emphasized that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised based on evidence presented during the trial, even if the individuals were not initially charge-sheeted. The court also clarified that the Magistrate’s earlier orders were for release from custody, not a formal discharge.
See also  Supreme Court Denies Transfer of Criminal Cases: Harita Sunil Parab vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2018)

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several key authorities in its judgment:

Cases:

Authority Court How it was considered
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 Supreme Court of India Extensively relied upon to define the scope and ambit of powers under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court reiterated that this power is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly, based on strong evidence.
Bijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706 Supreme Court of India Distinguished; Court clarified that while a mere verbal statement might not be sufficient, the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 provided sufficient basis for summoning the appellants.
Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537 Supreme Court of India Cited to emphasize the requirement of giving notice to the complainant before accepting a closure report. The court noted that this procedure was not followed in the present case.
S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak (2017) 16 SCC 226 Supreme Court of India Cited to highlight that a court is not powerless to summon an accused even if not named in the charge sheet, if evidence surfaces during trial.

Legal Provisions:

  • Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Power of Court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
  • Section 148, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
  • Section 149, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
  • Section 323, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 324, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
  • Section 325, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Punishment for murder.
  • Section 307, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Attempt to murder.
  • Section 506, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Punishment for criminal intimidation.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission Court’s Treatment
Appellants were discharged by the Magistrate Rejected. The Court clarified that the Magistrate’s orders were for release from custody, not a formal discharge.
The Magistrate acted mechanically without strong evidence Rejected. The Court held that the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 provided sufficient basis for summoning the appellants.
Depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were mere reiterations Rejected. The Court considered the depositions as valid evidence during the trial.
Investigating agency found appellants innocent Not conclusive. The Court emphasized that trial evidence can lead to summoning even if the investigating agency did not charge-sheet the accused.
The Magistrate should have considered investigation findings Not conclusive. The Court held that the trial court is empowered to consider the evidence presented during the trial.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • The Court relied on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION] to reiterate that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly, but it can be invoked based on the examination-in-chief of witnesses.
  • The Court distinguished Bijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION], clarifying that while a mere verbal statement might not be sufficient, the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 provided sufficient basis for summoning the appellants.
  • The Court cited Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police [CITATION] to highlight that the complainant should be given a notice before accepting a closure report, which was not done in this case.
  • The Court cited S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak [CITATION] to emphasize that the court is not powerless to summon an accused even if not named in the charge sheet, if evidence surfaces during trial.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who provided direct evidence of the appellants’ involvement in the crime. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is to ensure that all those potentially involved in the crime are brought to justice. The Court also clarified that the Magistrate’s earlier orders were not a discharge of the accused but merely a release from custody, and that the trial court is empowered to consider the evidence presented during the trial. The Court also noted that the procedure of giving notice to the complainant before accepting a closure report was not followed.

See also  Supreme Court Upholds Will-Based Property Division in Family Dispute: Sajan Sethi vs. Rajan Sethi (2020)

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Reason Percentage
Testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 40%
Power under Section 319 CrPC to ensure justice 30%
Clarification on Magistrate’s orders 15%
Procedure of giving notice to complainant 15%

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

Category Percentage
Fact (Consideration of factual aspects) 60%
Law (Consideration of legal provisions and precedents) 40%

Logical Reasoning:

FIR filed against multiple individuals, including appellants.

↓

Investigating agency does not charge-sheet appellants.

↓

Magistrate orders release of appellants from custody.

↓

Trial begins against charge-sheeted accused.

↓

P.W.1 and P.W.2 testify against appellants during trial.

↓

Magistrate summons appellants under Section 319 CrPC.

↓

High Court upholds the Magistrate’s decision.

↓

Supreme Court upholds the summoning of the appellants.

Key Takeaways

  • Power under Section 319 CrPC: Trial courts can summon individuals as accused based on evidence presented during the trial, even if they were not initially charge-sheeted.
  • Evidence: The evidence can include statements made in the examination-in-chief of witnesses.
  • Discharge vs. Release from Custody: An order releasing an accused from custody is not the same as a formal discharge.
  • Importance of Trial Testimony: Testimony during trial can be a sufficient basis for summoning additional accused persons.
  • Ensuring Justice: The court’s power under Section 319 CrPC is to ensure that all those potentially involved in a crime are brought to justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than upholding the High Court’s decision to allow the summoning of the accused.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be invoked based on evidence presented during the trial, including the examination-in-chief of witnesses, to summon individuals who were not initially charge-sheeted. The judgment reinforces the principle that the court’s primary duty is to ensure justice by bringing all potential offenders to trial. This judgment clarifies that the power under Section 319 CrPC is not limited to cases where the investigating agency has failed to act, but extends to situations where trial evidence reveals the involvement of additional individuals.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to allow the summoning of the appellants to face trial. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised based on evidence presented during the trial, including the examination-in-chief of witnesses. This judgment reinforces the court’s duty to ensure that all those potentially involved in a crime are brought to justice, even if they were not initially charge-sheeted by the investigating agency.

Source: Rajesh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana