LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trial court can summon 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: Sandeep Kumar vs. The State of Haryana & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: 28 July 2023
Date of the Judgment: 28 July 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 654
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Can a trial court summon individuals as additional accused based on the evidence presented by an eye-witness during the trial, even if those individuals were not initially named in the chargesheet? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, clarifying the scope and application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court emphasized the trial court’s duty to ensure that all those who appear to be involved in a crime are brought to justice, even if they were not initially charged. This judgment underscores the importance of a fair trial and the court’s role in uncovering the truth. The bench comprised Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, with the judgment authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Case Background
The case revolves around an incident that occurred on 07 September 2017 at midnight in Sirsa, Haryana. The appellant, Sandeep Kumar, was the complainant and a key witness (PW-9). According to the First Information Report (FIR), fifteen assailants broke into the complainant’s house to assault the residents. Seven of these assailants were named in the FIR, with three of them—Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan—allegedly armed with a gun and pistols. However, the police, after investigation, filed a chargesheet against only nine persons, excluding Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan, who were placed in column 2 of the chargesheet.
During the trial, while being examined as PW-9, Sandeep Kumar, the complainant, provided a detailed eyewitness account. He specifically identified Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan as being armed and actively involved in the assault. Following this testimony, the appellant filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to summon these three individuals as additional accused to face trial. The trial court allowed this application, but the High Court set aside the order in revision.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 07 September 2017 (Midnight) | Incident of assault at complainant’s house in Sirsa, Haryana. |
| FIR filed, naming fifteen assailants, including Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan. | |
| Police filed chargesheet against nine persons, excluding Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan. | |
| Trial commences; complainant Sandeep Kumar (PW-9) gives eyewitness testimony. | |
| Complainant identifies Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan as being armed and involved in the assault. | |
| Application filed under Section 319 CrPC to summon Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan as additional accused. | |
| Trial court allows application to summon additional accused. | |
| 02 March 2022 | Punjab & Haryana High Court sets aside the trial court’s order in revision. |
| 28 July 2023 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court order and upholds the trial court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court, based on the eyewitness testimony of PW-9, allowed the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan as additional accused. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a revision petition filed by Ramesh Gandhi, set aside the trial court’s order. The High Court reasoned that Ramesh Gandhi was found innocent during the investigation, that there was no evidence he used a gun, and that he allegedly fled the scene. The High Court also made a presumption that a person with a gun would not flee without firing, implying the complainant’s testimony was false. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core of this case rests on Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers a court to proceed against any person who appears to have committed an offense during the course of an inquiry or trial. The provision 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.”
Further, the judgment also discusses Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly. Section 149 of the IPC states:
“149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
Section 149 of the IPC, when read with Section 141 of the IPC, clarifies that no overt act needs to be assigned to a member of an unlawful assembly for them to be held liable. The mere presence as part of such an assembly is sufficient for conviction.
Arguments
The appellant argued that the trial court was correct in summoning the additional accused based on the eyewitness testimony of PW-9. The appellant contended that the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court’s order by making presumptions about the evidence and the conduct of the accused.
The respondent, Ramesh Gandhi, argued that he was found innocent during the investigation and that the High Court was correct to set aside the order of the trial court. The respondent also argued that he did not fire any shot and had fled the scene, which according to him, showed his lack of involvement in the crime.
The State of Haryana supported the appellant’s position, arguing that the trial court had sufficient evidence to summon the additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Trial Court Correct in Summoning Additional Accused | ✓ Eyewitness testimony of PW-9 clearly implicates the additional accused. ✓ High Court erred in making presumptions about the evidence. ✓ High Court should not have evaluated the merits of the evidence at this stage. |
Appellant |
| High Court Correct in Setting Aside Trial Court Order | ✓ Respondent was found innocent during investigation. ✓ No evidence of respondent using a gun. ✓ Respondent fled the scene, indicating lack of involvement. |
Respondent (Ramesh Gandhi) |
| Trial Court Correct in Summoning Additional Accused | ✓ Sufficient evidence to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. ✓ Trial court’s order should be upheld. |
State of Haryana |
The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellant’s emphasis on the importance of eyewitness testimony and the trial court’s role in ensuring all those who appear to be involved in a crime are brought to justice, even if they were not initially charged.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s order to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), based on the evidence presented by an eye-witness during the trial.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s order to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), based on the evidence presented by an eye-witness during the trial. | The High Court’s order was set aside. The trial court’s decision to summon the additional accused was upheld. | The Supreme Court held that the trial court was correct in summoning the additional accused based on the eyewitness testimony of PW-9. The High Court had erred in making presumptions about the evidence and the conduct of the accused at the stage of Section 319 of the CrPC. The merits of the evidence are to be appreciated during the trial and not at the stage of summoning. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 632 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to clarify that under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), mere presence in an unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction, without needing a specific individual role or act. |
| Yunis alias Kariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 539 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to reiterate that no overt act needs to be assigned to a member of an unlawful assembly for conviction under Section 149 IPC. |
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the scope and ambit of Section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing the court’s duty to punish the real culprit and the need for a higher degree of satisfaction before summoning an additional accused. |
| Vikas v. State of Rajasthan | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight that under Section 319 CrPC, a person may be “arrested” or “summoned” if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offence. |
The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section empowers the court to summon additional accused during the course of an inquiry or trial if it appears from the evidence that they have committed an offense.
- Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly, stating that every member is guilty of the offense committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly.
- Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines unlawful assembly.
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Trial Court Correct in Summoning Additional Accused | The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the trial court had sufficient evidence in the form of PW-9’s testimony to summon the additional accused. |
| High Court Correct in Setting Aside Trial Court Order | The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the High Court had erred in making presumptions about the evidence and the conduct of the accused at the stage of Section 319 of the CrPC. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 632 | The Supreme Court followed this authority to clarify that under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), mere presence in an unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction, without needing a specific individual role or act. |
| Yunis alias Kariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 539 | The Supreme Court followed this authority to reiterate that no overt act needs to be assigned to a member of an unlawful assembly for conviction under Section 149 IPC. |
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 | The Supreme Court followed this authority to explain the scope and ambit of Section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing the court’s duty to punish the real culprit and the need for a higher degree of satisfaction before summoning an additional accused. |
| Vikas v. State of Rajasthan | The Supreme Court followed this authority to highlight that under Section 319 CrPC, a person may be “arrested” or “summoned” if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offence. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the court’s duty is to ensure justice by punishing the real culprits. The Court emphasized that the trial court had sufficient evidence in the form of the eyewitness testimony of PW-9 to summon the additional accused. The Court was also guided by the principle that the merits of the evidence should be appreciated during the trial and not at the stage of summoning under Section 319 CrPC. The Court also considered the fact that the charges included Section 149 of the IPC, which makes every member of an unlawful assembly liable for the offense committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Duty to punish the real culprits | 35% |
| Sufficiency of eyewitness testimony | 30% |
| Merits of evidence to be appreciated during trial | 25% |
| Application of Section 149 IPC | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The sentiment analysis reveals that the court was primarily driven by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the eyewitness testimony, while also considering the relevant legal provisions and principles. The emphasis on the factual aspects underscores the importance of the trial court’s role in evaluating the evidence and ensuring that all those who appear to be involved in a crime are brought to justice.
Eyewitness Testimony (PW-9) Implicates Additional Accused
Trial Court Summons Additional Accused Under Section 319 CrPC
High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order
Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order
Trial to Proceed with Additional Accused
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the respondent was innocent based on the investigation and his alleged conduct of fleeing the scene. The Court emphasized that such considerations were premature at the stage of Section 319 CrPC. The Court reasoned that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by evaluating the merits of the evidence at this preliminary stage. The Supreme Court also clarified that under Section 149 of the IPC, the mere presence of an individual in an unlawful assembly is sufficient to establish guilt, without the need for a specific overt act. The Court, therefore, held that the trial court was justified in summoning the additional accused.
The Supreme Court stated:
“In our considered opinion, the prosecution had fully made out its case for summoning the three as accused under Section 319, Cr.PC, so that they may also face trial.”
“The reasoning given by the High Court, cannot be accepted at the stage of consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.PC. The merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial, by cross examination of the witnesses and scrutiny of the Court. This is not to be done at the stage of Section 319, though this is precisely what the High Court has done in the present case.”
“A plain reading of Section 149 IPC (read with Section 141 IPC), makes it clear that no overt act needs to be assigned to a member of an unlawful assembly. “Even if no overt act is imputed to a particular person when the charge is under Section 149 IPC, the presence of the accused as part of an unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction”.”
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts have the power to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on the evidence presented during the trial.
- The merits of the evidence should be appreciated during the trial and not at the stage of summoning under Section 319 CrPC.
- Under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), mere presence in an unlawful assembly is sufficient to establish guilt, without the need for a specific overt act.
- The court’s duty is to ensure that all those who appear to be involved in a crime are brought to justice.
- The degree of satisfaction required to summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is higher than that required at the time of taking cognizance.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial, including the additional accused, as expeditiously as possible.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a trial court can summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on the evidence presented during the trial, and the merits of the evidence should be appreciated during the trial and not at the stage of summoning under Section 319 CrPC. This judgment reinforces the trial court’s power to ensure that all those who appear to be involved in a crime are brought to justice, even if they were not initially named in the chargesheet. This judgment also clarifies that under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), mere presence in an unlawful assembly is sufficient to establish guilt, without the need for a specific overt act, thus reiterating the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sandeep Kumar vs. The State of Haryana & Anr. reaffirms the trial court’s power to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on the evidence presented during the trial. The Court emphasized that the merits of the evidence should be appreciated during the trial and not at the stage of summoning. This ruling ensures that all those who appear to be involved in a crime are brought to justice, underscoring the importance of a fair trial and the court’s role in uncovering the truth.