Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard appeals against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had set aside summons issued under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Trial Court against private respondents in connection with FIR No.50 of 2020 registered at Police Station Passiana, District Patiala, Punjab, concerning a murder case. The appellant, the complainant and informant whose brother died, argued that the High Court interfered prematurely, as the Trial Court had found sufficient material to summon the respondents based on evidence, including identification in the FIR and eyewitness depositions. The private respondents contended that the power under Section 319 should be used sparingly, pointing to inconsistencies in witness statements and evidence from a Special Investigation Team (SIT) that suggested their absence from the crime scene. The State of Punjab did not appear despite notice, having earlier declared the respondents innocent. The Court analyzed the legal position under Section 319 CrPC, citing precedents like Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab and Brijendra Singh v State of Rajasthan, which outline that the power is exercisable only by a court based on evidence during inquiry or trial, with a test higher than framing charge but just short of guilt. The Court reasoned that the High Court's interference was unjustified at this preliminary stage, as the Trial Court had formed a tentative view of likely involvement. It emphasized the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur and the court's duty to ensure justice. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Trial Court's summons, while directing the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to Punjab government officials due to the State's absence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summoning Additional Accused - Section 319 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - The Supreme Court considered the High Court's interference with the Trial Court's summons under Section 319 CrPC against private respondents in a murder case. The Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the summons at a preliminary stage when the Trial Court had formed a tentative view of likely involvement based on evidence, including eyewitness depositions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 is to be exercised sparingly but the test is higher than framing charge and just short of guilt, and interference at this stage was premature. Held that the impugned order requires interference and the appeals are allowed, restoring the Trial Court's summons. (Paras 10-11) B) Criminal Procedure - Evidence and Witness Testimony - Eyewitness Credibility - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The Court addressed arguments regarding inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, specifically the number of persons in the car during the incident. The appellant maintained consistency in identifying accused, while respondents argued variations indicated case-building. The Court found that such variations did not negate the Trial Court's prima facie satisfaction for summoning under Section 319, especially when supported by depositions. Held that the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, was sufficient for the Trial Court to proceed. (Paras 4-5) C) Criminal Procedure - Investigation and Prosecution - Role of State - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The Court noted the State's absence despite service and its earlier stance declaring respondents innocent. It criticized the State for failing to assist the Court as investigator and prosecutor in criminal matters. The Court directed a copy of the judgment to be sent to Punjab government officials for remedial steps, emphasizing the State's duty in criminal proceedings. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the summons issued under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the private respondents at a preliminary stage of trial
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Trial Court's summons under Section 319 CrPC against the private respondents
Law Points
- Power under Section 319 CrPC is exercisable only by a court
- not by any officer not acting as a court
- The test for summoning under Section 319 CrPC is higher than at the stage of framing charge but just short of holding a person guilty
- The court must form a prima facie opinion based on evidence that the person appears to have committed an offence
- The doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur underpins Section 319 CrPC
- The court has a duty to do justice by punishing real culprits
