Supreme Court Quashed A Trial Court's Order Summoning An Additional Accused After Conviction, Ruling It Violates Procedural Guidelines Requiring Such Summons Before Trial Conclusion

Case Title:

Devendra Kumar Pal v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Date of Order:

06 September 2024

Bench:

J. B.R. Gavai and J. K.V. Vishwanathan

Parties:

Appellant(s)-  Devendra Kumar Pal
Respondent(s)- State of U.P. and Anr

SUBJECT

The case concerns the legality of a trial court's decision to summon Devendra Kumar Pal as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) after it had already convicted and sentenced other co-accused. The Supreme Court examined whether this action complied with the procedural guidelines set by the Constitution Bench in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab [(2023) 1 SCC 289], which states that an additional accused must be summoned before the conclusion of the trial.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

1. Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.: Empowers the court to summon additional accused during trial, provided this is done before the trial concludes with a conviction or acquittal.
2. Section 302 of the IPC: Deals with the offense of murder, under which the trial was conducted.
3. Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab: A Supreme Court decision establishing that Section 319 must be invoked before the trial ends with a conviction or acquittal.
4. Article 141 of the Constitution: Mandates that the Supreme Court's decisions are binding on all lower courts.

OVERVIEW

1. Devendra Kumar Pal and others were tried in connection with an offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge) concluded the trial and passed a judgment on March 21, 2012. Some of the accused were convicted, while others were acquitted in the first half of the day.
2. Post-lunch on the same day, the trial court sentenced the convicted persons. After pronouncing the sentence, the trial court invoked Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to summon Devendra Kumar Pal for trial, deeming him necessary to be tried.
3. Devendra Kumar Pal challenged this order in the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court dismissed his petition on August 25, 2021, upholding the trial court’s order to summon him under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
4. Devendra Kumar Pal appealed to the Supreme Court. His counsel argued that, per the Constitution Bench decision in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, the power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be invoked before the conclusion of the trial and before the order of conviction and sentencing is pronounced.
5. The Supreme Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment, which stated that if an order summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is passed after the pronouncement of conviction or sentence, it would not be sustainable. The Court found that in this case, the trial court summoned Devendra Kumar Pal after the conviction and sentencing of other accused, making the order unsustainable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court judgment and the trial court's order of summoning Devendra Kumar Pal.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the trial court's decision to summon Devendra Kumar Pal under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after convicting and sentencing other accused was lawful.
2. Whether the trial court adhered to the procedural requirements established by the Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, which mandates that summoning an additional accused must occur before the trial's conclusion.
3. Whether summoning the appellant after the trial's conclusion prejudiced his right to a fair trial and affected the legality of the proceedings.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANTS

1. The appellant, Devendra Kumar Pal, contested the trial court's decision to summon him under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. His counsel, Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, argued that this decision was procedurally incorrect based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab. This judgment established that the power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 must be exercised before the trial concludes with a conviction and sentencing. Since the trial court had already delivered its verdict and sentenced other accused before summoning Pal, Mr. Bindra contended that the subsequent invocation of Section 319 was legally invalid.
2. Mr. Bindra further emphasized that the trial court's decision to summon Devendra Kumar Pal came after the trial had reached its conclusion. The court had already pronounced its judgment regarding the guilt of other accused and imposed sentences. This sequence of events was argued to be contrary to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court, which require that any summoning of additional accused occur before the trial’s conclusion.
3. The appellant also raised concerns about legal fairness and procedural integrity. By summoning him after the trial had ended, the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to participate in the proceedings with other accused. This approach, according to Mr. Bindra, could potentially prejudice the appellant’s right to a fair trial, as the trial court's decision to invoke Section 319 was made only after reaching a verdict on the primary accused.
4. In summary, Devendra Kumar Pal sought to have the summoning order quashed, arguing that it did not adhere to established legal standards and violated principles of natural justice. The appellant's challenge centered on the procedural errors and unfairness introduced by the trial court’s timing of the summoning decision.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENTS

1. The respondents, represented by Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, argued that the trial court was within its legal rights to summon Devendra Kumar Pal under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. They contended that the trial court had passed the order of conviction, sentencing, and the summoning order on the same day, indicating that these were part of a continuous judicial process. Mr. Jain highlighted that the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab had not imposed an absolute bar on summoning an additional accused after the pronouncement of the conviction. Instead, the Constitution Bench had clarified that if the summoning order and the judgment were issued on the same date, the matter must be examined based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Further, the respondents argued that the trial court did not violate procedural law because the judgment and the summoning order were both issued in close succession. They contended that the timing of the summoning order—coming immediately after sentencing—did not negate the trial court's authority to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. They asserted that since the trial court had gathered sufficient evidence during the trial implicating Devendra Kumar Pal, it was necessary to summon him to ensure that justice was served comprehensively. The respondents maintained that summoning the appellant was justified based on the evidence and the need to address the involvement of all individuals who may have participated in the offense.
3. Moreover, the respondents urged the Court to interpret the ruling in Sukhpal Singh Khaira flexibly, considering the intention behind Section 319 Cr.P.C., which empowers the court to summon any person not being an accused who appears to be involved in the offense. They argued that the Constitution Bench's decision did not intend to create a rigid framework that would impede the court's ability to administer justice. They suggested that summoning the appellant, even after passing the conviction and sentencing orders, was a step toward ensuring that all those responsible for the crime were brought to trial. Therefore, the respondents requested the Supreme Court to uphold the trial court's summoning order and dismiss the appeal filed by Devendra Kumar Pal.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

1. The Supreme Court, led by Justice B.R. Gavai, examined whether the trial court correctly invoked Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to summon Devendra Kumar Pal as an additional accused after convicting and sentencing other co-accused. The case hinged on the principles established in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, where it was ruled that Section 319 must be invoked before pronouncing the order of conviction or acquittal.
2. In this case, the trial court on March 21, 2012, first convicted and acquitted some accused in the morning. Post-lunch, it sentenced the convicted individuals and then summoned the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court noted that according to Sukhpal Singh Khaira, summoning an additional accused after passing a sentence or acquittal is legally unsustainable. The Constitution Bench had clarified that such a summoning order must precede the trial’s conclusion.
3. Given that the trial court had summoned the appellant after convicting and sentencing others, the Supreme Court found this action contrary to the established legal procedure. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, quashing the High Court's judgment and the trial court's summoning order, emphasizing that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised before the conclusion of the trial.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court's ruling underscored the strict procedural requirements for invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). It emphasized that a trial court must summon an additional accused before the trial concludes with a conviction or acquittal, as laid out in the Sukhpal Singh Khaira judgment. In this case, since the trial court summoned Devendra Kumar Pal only after pronouncing the conviction and sentencing the co-accused, the Supreme Court found this action legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court quashed the summoning order and reiterated the necessity for courts to adhere to the established legal framework to ensure fairness and due process.