The Courts Should Refrain From Exercising Powers Under Section 319 Crpc Unless Cogent Evidence Beyond A Prima Facie Case Is Produced Against The Additional Accused: Supreme Court

Case title:

N. Manogar & Anr. v. The Inspector of Police & Ors. 

Date of Order:

16th February, 2024

Bench:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Parties:

Appellant(s): N. Manogar & Anr.

Respondent(s): The Inspector of Police & Ors.

SUBJECT:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’) overturned the order of the Madras High Court in a legal dispute revolving around various sections of IPC. The dispute primarily was concerned with the inclusion of appellants as additional accused in the matter. The Supreme Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence against the appellants to implead them, and upheld the order of the Trial Court.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 

• Section 216: Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
• Section 319: Empowers the court to summon and try other persons, in addition to those already named as accused in the case, if it appears that they have also committed the offence being tried.
• Section 161: Police may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and such statement may be reduced into writing.
• Section 482: Inherent Powers of the High Court.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):  

• Section 452: Punishment for House Trespass After Preparation for Hurt, Assault, or Wrong­ful Restraint.
• Section 294(b): Punishment for singing, reciting, or uttering any obscene song, ballad, or words, in or near any public place.
• Section 323: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 506(1): Punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Section 448

OVERVIEW:

• Respondent No. 1 initiated a First Information Report (FIR) based on the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 (or ‘the complainant) filed on 20th April 2018, under sections 448, 294(b), 323, and 506(1) of the IPC.
• Respondent No. 3 forcefully entered the premises of Respondent No. 2’s residence and inquired about one Vidhul, who was Respondent No. 2’s son. 
• When Respondent No. 3 found out that Vidhul was the son of Respondent No. 2, he allegedly slapped Respondent No. 2 and pushed her onto a sofa. He went on to verbally abuse the complainant and forcibly dragged Vidhul out of the bathroom and assaulted him physically until he fell unconscious. 
• Respondent No. 2, in the complaint alleged that Respondent No. 3 had entered their home and assaulted the complainant’s son and the complainant. 
• Upon Investigation, the complainant’s, witnesses, and the doctor’s (who examined the victims’ statements) statements indicated Respondent No. 3’s involvement in the issue under investigation. The statements served as evidence implying the involvement of Respondent No. 3 in the matter. 
• The Complainant sought a re-investigation in the matter through an application under section 483 of the CrPC on 27.01.2019 before the High Court of Madras regarding the FIR in question.
• In this application Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 (unknown ‘boy’) were identified for the first time as part-takers in the alleged incident. The appellants were named as 2 additional accused. 
• The High Court vide order dated 05.02.2019, set aside the Trial Court’s order and granted permission to the complainant to file an application under section 319 of CrPC before the Trial Court.  
• The High Court instructed the Trial Court to consider the complainant’s application and include the Appellants as accused in the proceedings arising from the FIR.
• Subsequent to the order of the High Court, the Trial Court allowed the application partly, impleading Appellant No. 1 as accused but dismissed the prayer for impleading Appellant No. 1, stating that the Appellant No. 1’s, a policeman, omission to prevent the crime amounts to abetment. 
• The appellants have appealed against the High Court’s order. 

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether the evidence was strong enough to implead the appellants?
• Whether the circumstances of the case warrant the exercise of powers given under section 319 of CrPC?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT(S):

• The court cannot implead the appellants as there is no sufficient evidence against them. 
• The allegations against them are vague and unspecific, not amounting to sufficient evidence to suggest their involvement in the crime. 
• The High Court had made an erroneous judgment by reversing the Trial Court’s order, contradictory to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
• It was unfair to Appellant No. 1 to only partially allow the High Court’s order and only impleading him as an accused rather than impleading both appellants 1 & 2 as accused in the trial. 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:

• Opposing the Trial Court’s judgment, the respondents contended that the High Court’s ruling was justified as the statements recorded under section 161 of CrPC and witness testimonies establish the appellants’ involvement in the crime. 
• The witness testimonies and sufficient evidence to prove the appellants were 
• The High Court’s judgment was not erroneous as it was in alignment with the precedent set by the case of Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh by the Supreme Court. 

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The Supreme Court noted that the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) lays down the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 of CrPC. This section deals with the concept of additional prosecution. According to this section, a Court is empowered to add any person, not already accused, to the trial against whom strong evidence has been presented. The same was reiterated in Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
• In the Hardeep Singh case, it was laid down that the principles governing the exercise of section 319 of CrPC were (i) it is a discretionary power that is to be used sparingly; (ii) The test applied under this section should be more stringent than merely establishing a prima facie case and; (iii) the evidence produced must be strong and convincing enough to indicate near probability of the individual’s complicity in the offense. 
• The Court opined that the High Court’s order was not aligned with the principles said down in the above-mentioned case. 
• There was not enough evidence to implead the appellants in the crime. 
• It was opined that the discretionary power of section 319 of the CrPC ought to be used sparingly and only when warranted due to circumstances. 
• The evidence on record did not satisfy the requirements as laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh.
• The Court held that the evidence produced should be more substantiative than the basic evidence requirement needed to start a legal case. The evidence should be strong enough to suggest guilt, but not strong enough to lead to an automatic conviction in the absence of any defense. 
• The discretionary nature of the Court’s powers under section 319 of CrPC was highlighted by the Supreme Court.
• The High Court’s order was subsequently set aside. 

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order, ruling that the evidence produced was not satisfactory enough to implead the appellants. Referring to the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court emphasized the significance of the discretion provided under section 319 of CrPC. The Court ruled that although the evidence should be stronger than the initial evidence, it should not be convincing enough to assuredly convict the person in question. The appeal was consequently allowed, upholding the order of the Trial Court. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.