Supreme Court Upholds Summoning of Additional Accused under Section 319 CrPC in Homicide Case: Dev Wati and Ors. vs. The State of Haryana and Anr. (24 January 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 60
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Can a trial court summon additional individuals as accused based on evidence presented during a trial? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning a homicide, where the complainant sought to implicate additional individuals during the trial. This judgment clarifies the threshold for summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The bench consisted of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the opinion authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case originated from a missing person complaint lodged by Harkesh (PW-9), the brother of the deceased, Suraj. Two days later, Suraj’s body was discovered. Initially, Rajpal @ Rajua, Prem Pal, and Devender @ Deven were charged with murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the trial, Harkesh testified, implicating additional individuals: Dev Wati (the deceased’s wife), her brothers Surinder Singh and Badan, her sister Amarwati, and her sister’s sons, Raju and Kalu. Harkesh’s testimony indicated that Raju and Kalu had taken Suraj on a motorcycle, claiming that the other appellants had called him for a compromise regarding the ongoing matrimonial dispute between Suraj and his wife, Dev Wati. It was also noted that there was a serious dispute between Suraj and Dev Wati, with her relatives supporting her. Several legal proceedings were already underway, including maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, a complaint under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC (filed by Dev Wati), and two other criminal cases under Sections 323, 324, and 504 of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court, based on Harkesh’s testimony, allowed the application under Section 319 of the CrPC, summoning the appellants to face trial. The Sessions Court noted that Raju and Kalu had taken the deceased on their motorcycle, stating that the appellants and one Omi had called him for a compromise in the pending matrimonial dispute. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh upheld the Sessions Court’s decision in Criminal Revision No. 3135/10 (O&M). The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in question 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.”

This section empowers a court to summon and proceed against any person who appears to be guilty of an offense, even if they were not initially named as an accused in the charge sheet. The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier decision in Hardeep Singh v. The State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], which clarified the meaning of the word “appear” in Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court in Hardeep Singh held that the word “appear” means “clear to the comprehension” or a phrase near to, if not synonymous with “proved,” and imparts a lesser degree of probability than proof. It was further clarified that while only a prima facie case needs to be established from the evidence, it requires much stronger evidence than a mere probability of complicity.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the evidence presented by PW-9, Harkesh, was not sufficient to warrant summoning them under Section 319 of the CrPC. They contended that the evidence did not meet the threshold required to “appear” guilty of the offense. They raised certain issues on facts, which they argued should be considered by the Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in this judgment. However, the core issue before the court was whether the High Court was correct in upholding the Sessions Court’s decision to summon the appellants under Section 319 of the CrPC based on the evidence presented by PW-9.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:
The Supreme Court relied on Hardeep Singh v. The State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] to interpret the meaning of the word “appear” in Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the threshold for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is higher than a prima facie case but lower than the standard required for conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the deposition of PW-9, Harkesh, which directly implicated the appellants in the events leading to the death of Suraj. The Court emphasized that the evidence presented was not merely a probability of complicity but met the threshold required under Section 319 of the CrPC, as interpreted in Hardeep Singh v. The State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92]. The Court also noted that while the appellants raised certain factual issues, these were matters to be considered by the Sessions Court during the trial.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence (the deposition of PW-9) and legal principles (the interpretation of Section 319 CrPC as laid down in Hardeep Singh). The Court’s focus on the factual evidence suggests that the specific details of the case played a significant role in the decision.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing that the factual issues raised by the appellants should be considered by the Sessions Court during the trial. The Court’s reasoning was that the evidence presented by PW-9 was sufficient to meet the threshold for summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, as clarified in Hardeep Singh v. The State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92]. The Court stated that the test for summoning is a degree of satisfaction which is more than a prima facie case but less than the standard required for conviction.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“Though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, it requires much stronger evidence than a mere probability of the complicity of the persons against whom the deponent has deposed.”

“The test that has to be applied is of a degree of satisfaction which is more than that of a 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, may lead to conviction of the proposed accused.”

“In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court upheld the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC based on the testimony of a witness during the trial.
• ✓ The threshold for summoning additional accused is higher than a prima facie case but lower than the standard required for conviction.
• ✓ Factual issues raised by the accused should be considered during the trial and not at the stage of summoning.
• ✓ This judgment reinforces the power of the trial court to summon additional accused based on evidence presented during the trial, ensuring that all those who appear to be involved in an offense are brought to justice.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment. The matter was remanded back to the Sessions Court for trial.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised to summon additional accused if the evidence presented during the trial suggests their involvement in the offense. The threshold for summoning is higher than a prima facie case but lower than the standard required for conviction. This judgment reaffirms the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. The State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], clarifying the scope and application of Section 319 of the CrPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the High Court and the Sessions Court to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the evidence presented by PW-9 was sufficient to meet the required threshold, and any factual issues should be addressed during the trial. This judgment reinforces the importance of witness testimony in identifying and prosecuting all those involved in a crime.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure
Child Category: Homicide
Child Category: Criminal Trial

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: What is Section 319 of the CrPC?
A: Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows a court to summon additional individuals as accused if it appears from the evidence presented during the trial that they may have committed an offense.

Q: What is the threshold for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC?
A: The threshold is higher than a prima facie case but lower than the standard required for conviction. The evidence must indicate that the person “appears” to be guilty, meaning the evidence is clear to the comprehension.

Q: What if there are factual disputes regarding the involvement of the additional accused?
A: Factual disputes are to be considered by the trial court during the trial and not at the stage of summoning additional accused.

Q: What does this judgment mean for criminal trials?
A: This judgment reinforces the power of the trial court to summon additional accused based on evidence presented during the trial, ensuring that all those who appear to be involved in an offense are brought to justice.