Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against the order of the High Court which upheld the cognizance taken by the Additional Sessions Judge against the appellant under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The FIR was filed by Dharam Pal Singh, alleging that a mob of 50-60 supporters of MLA Kanwar Sarvesh Kumar Chauhan attacked them after a meeting, resulting in the death of a driver and injuries to others. Initially, the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 did not mention the appellant as leading the mob. However, during the trial, the witness claimed for the first time that the appellant led the mob. The Additional Sessions Judge issued summons based on this statement, which was challenged in the High Court and upheld. The appellant contended that the Trial Court did not properly consider the lack of prior mention of his involvement in the FIR or the Section 161 statement. The Supreme Court analyzed the circumstances and found that the Trial Court had acted mechanically without proper consideration of the evidence. It held that the power under Section 319 should be exercised cautiously and that the Trial Court's failure to verify the new allegation led to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside both the Additional Sessions Judge's and the High Court's orders.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance - Improper Exercise of Discretion - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319 - The Trial Court failed to apply its mind properly before taking cognizance against the accused based on a statement made for the first time during trial. The court emphasized that cognizance should not be taken merely on new statements without supporting material and that caution is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. Held that the order of cognizance was set aside due to improper exercise of discretion (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court properly exercised its discretion in taking cognizance against the accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court, and ruled that the cognizance taken was improper due to lack of prior evidence against the appellant.
Law Points
- Cognizance under Section 319
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Discretion of Trial Court
- Caution in Exercise of Power
