Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals against the High Court's refusal to quash a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The case arose from the murder of Vijay Singh on 10.05.2011. The first informant (PW-1), mother of the deceased, initially named the appellants (Shankar and Vishal) in the FIR due to old enmity. However, during investigation, she retracted, stating she had written their names incorrectly. The investigation officer filed a chargesheet excluding the appellants, and other witnesses also exonerated them. During trial, PW-1 again named the appellants in her examination-in-chief, leading the prosecution to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon them. The trial court allowed the application, and the High Court dismissed the appellants' petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and held that the only witness against the appellants was PW-1, whose statements were contradictory and retracted. The court noted that the degree of satisfaction required under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much stricter than a prima facie case, as laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. The evidence must be strong and cogent, such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction. Here, PW-1's testimony was unreliable, and no other witness supported the prosecution's case. Therefore, the summoning order was not justified. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and High Court, quashed the summoning order, and discharged the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summoning of Additional Accused - Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Stricter Satisfaction - The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary, requiring a higher degree of satisfaction than a prima facie case; the evidence must be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction. The court must find strong and cogent evidence, not mere probability of complicity. (Paras 15-16) B) Criminal Procedure - Summoning of Additional Accused - Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Retracted Statement - Where the sole witness naming the appellants retracted her statement during investigation and trial, and other witnesses exonerated them, the evidence is insufficient to summon the appellants. The trial court's order was based on a single witness's contradictory testimony, which does not meet the stricter standard under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (Paras 17-20) C) Criminal Procedure - Summoning of Additional Accused - Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Abatement of Trial - The fact that the trial against the original accused has abated due to their death does not bar summoning the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as held in Gurmail Singh v. State of UP. However, the summoning order must still be justified on its own merits. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was properly exercised in light of the facts and evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Impugned orders of the High Court and Trial Court set aside. Summoning order dated 24.08.2017 quashed. Appellants discharged from the case.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC requires stricter satisfaction than prima facie case
- evidence must be strong and cogent
- power to be exercised sparingly
- retracted statement of sole witness insufficient
