Discretion Under 319 Cr.p.c. Is To Be Used Cautiously; Additional Accused Should Be Summoned Only If There Is Substantial And Conclusive Evidence

DATE OF ORDER:

28th Of February 2024

JUDGE:

Hon’ble Justice Prem Narayan Singh

PARTIES: 

PETITIONER – Majid @ Bablu And Imran, Represented By Advocate Shri Himanshu Thakur.

RESPONDENT – The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Represented By Counsel Ms. Nisha Jaiswal.

SUBJECT:  

The case deals with applying and invocating Section 319 of the CrPC. Based on the evidence produced and the interpretation of legal principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court, particularly in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. the State of Punjab, additional accused persons may be summoned during the trial. In this case, the petitioners contested the trial court's order to summon them as suspects based on suspicion and requested the order to be set aside. The issues centre on how the legislation should be applied, when to summon more accused, and whether Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. requires substantial proof before calling someone to appear accused.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,1974

• Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court.
• Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section grants the High Court the power to revise orders passed by subordinate criminal courts.
• Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section allows a court to proceed against any person who has not been an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense for which they can be tried along with the accused.
• Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the submission of a final report by the police when, after investigation, they find insufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to the Magistrate.
• Section 178(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): allows for the closure of a case by the police if no evidence is found against the accused during investigation.

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1921

• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of rioting, involving the use of deadly weapons, by an assembly of five or more persons.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertains to the offense of attempted murder, encompassing acts with the intention to kill or cause grievous harm to another person.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) establishes the principle of vicarious liability, making every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offense committed in prosecution of the common object.
• Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter a public servant from his duty.
• Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of voluntarily causing hurt in the commission of robbery.

BRIEF FACTS

• The case involves Majid alias Bablu, a bus operator, and Imran, a businessman, both residents of Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, who filed a criminal revision petition against the State of Madhya Pradesh. 
• The petitioners challenged an order under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, in ST No.21/2017.
• In the original judgment, some accused were convicted while others were acquitted. The trial court, however, summoned Majid and Imran as accused based on their alleged involvement in the offense.

QUESTIONS RAISED

• Was it appropriate for the trial court to summon the petitioners as accused after they had not been charged in the case, per Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.?
• Whether the trial court's decision to summon the petitioners was founded solely on suspicion or on adequate and acceptable evidence? 
• Was it appropriate for the trial court to rely on the ruling in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab given the facts of this case? 
• Whether the trial court followed accepted legal norms and rules when it ordered the petitioners to face separate trials?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

The petitioners, or appellant, made the following points in this case: 

• Since the petitioners had no involvement in the crime, the final report filed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. indicated they should not have been charged notwithstanding their initial implicature.
• The trial court's decision to summon the petitioners as accused was based solely on suspicion, rather than concrete evidence linking them to the offense.
• The appellant argued that Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. did not warrant their summons as accused because the evidence against them was inadmissible and insufficient.
• The appellant argued that the trial court's reliance on the judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab might not have been appropriate or applicable to the specific circumstances of this case.
• The appeal also stressed that as the petitioners were not afforded a reasonable chance to refute the accusations, calling them in as accused would be against both their rights and procedural protections.
• In general, by pointing out procedural flaws and a dearth of proof to support their inclusion in the case, the appellant contested the legitimacy and legality of the trial court's decision to summon them as accused.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The respondent contended that the trial court's decision to summon the petitioners as accused was based on valid grounds and supported by the evidence presented during the proceedings.
• According to the respondent, the trial court properly used its authority under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioners because there was reason to believe they were involved in the offense.
• It was stressed that, notwithstanding the circumstantial character of the evidence against the petitioners, it was sufficient to summon them in as accused, particularly in light of the seriousness of the offense.
• The respondent reiterated that the trial court's reliance on the judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab was appropriate and relevant to the case, as it provided guidance on summoning additional accused based on emerging evidence.
• Additionally, the respondent asserted that summoning the petitioners as accused was essential to ensure that justice was served and that all individuals involved in the offense were held accountable for their actions.
• All things considered, the respondent supported the trial court's judgment to summon the petitioners as accused, claiming that it was supported by the evidence and compliant with the laws regulating criminal cases.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:

The Court's analysis was mainly concerned with determining whether the trial court's decision to summon the petitioners as accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was lawful and suitable. The Court's analysis is broken down as follows:

• The Court examined relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C., including Section 319 to determine whether the trial court's action was in line with statutory requirements.
• To determine the proper interpretation and application of the law in calling additional defendants, the Court relied on legal precedents, including rulings from the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab. 
• The Court carefully examined the evidence in the case, taking into account its relevance, admissibility, and sufficient to prove the petitioner's involvement in the offense.
• Under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the Court stressed the concepts of vicarious liability and the necessity of substantial proof before calling further accused parties. 
• The Court emphasized that the authority granted by Section 319 is discretionary and that prudence and careful thought should be exercised before summoning anyone as an accused party.
• The court referred to the judgment of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab which revolves around the application of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). It allows a court to summon an additional accused during the trial if it appears that they have committed an offence. Hardeep Singh was charged with murder, and during the trial, the prosecution sought to summon additional accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of this provision, stating that it is rooted in the principle that justice should prevail even if it means summoning additional accused. The Court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and only when circumstances warrant it.
• Another judgement referred by the Court was that of Brindaban Das & others vs. State of West Bengal (2009) 3 SCC 329. This judgment highlights the discretion of the court in invoking Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The court must consider whether the evidence against the additional accused is sufficient for conviction before summoning them. The discretion must be exercised cautiously, considering the facts and circumstances of each case to prevent prejudice to the prosecution or delay in the trial.
• Vikas vs. State of Rajasthan 2017: The judgment emphasizes that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly. The Court should summon additional accused only when circumstances warrant it and when there is more than a prima facie case against them. This ensures that the power is not used routinely and only in cases where justice demands the summoning of additional accused.
• It was stated by the Court that as laid down in Juhru and others vs. Karim and Another AIR 2023 SCC 1160 powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C are discretionary. The court should summon additional accused only when there is sufficient and overwhelming evidence against them. Routine use of this power should be avoided, and its exercise should be guided by the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that those summoned are genuinely implicated in the offense.
• After a thorough examination, the Court concluded that the trial court's decision lacked sufficient grounds and was not in accordance with legal principles. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court's order to summon the petitioners as the accused.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of the case file involves the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore setting aside the order under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) issued by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge in Mandsaur District. The court found that the summoning of the petitioners as accused was not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The court stressed that a person should only be summoned under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. where there is substantial and conclusive evidence on file, and it is in the best interests of justice to do so. The trial court's decision to summon the petitioners on suspicion without providing clear and convincing justification was deemed unjustified by the court. 

Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the finding recorded by the trial court to summon the petitioners under Section 319 of Cr.P.C was not upheld. The judgment highlights the importance of strong evidence and adherence to legal principles when summoning additional accused persons during trial proceedings.