Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Naveen against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which had set aside the trial court's rejection of an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon Naveen as an additional accused. The case arose from FIR No.156 of 2018 registered for offences under Sections 307, 364, 366, 376 read with Section 34 IPC, later including Section 302 IPC after the victim's death. The main accused, Arjun, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The complainant sought to summon Naveen and Mehar Singh as additional accused, alleging they were accomplices. The trial court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence. The High Court reversed this decision regarding Naveen. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 319 CrPC as laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that the power is discretionary and requires strong and cogent evidence, more than a prima facie case but short of certainty of conviction. Applying this standard, the Court noted that the alleged offence occurred in a hotel, and evidence from hotel staff and CCTV footage showed only Arjun was present. Naveen's presence in the hospital after the incident did not make him an accomplice. The Court concluded that the evidence against Naveen, if unrebutted, would not lead to conviction, and thus set aside the High Court's order. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the Section 319 issue and would not influence the pending appeal of the convicted accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 CrPC - Power to Summon Additional Accused - Standard of Evidence - The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly. The test is more than a prima facie case as at framing of charge, but short of satisfaction that evidence if unrebutted would lead to conviction. Strong and cogent evidence is required, not mere probability of complicity. (Paras 11-12) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 CrPC - Summoning of Accused - Circumstantial Evidence - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the presence of the appellant in the hospital after the alleged occurrence does not make him an accomplice to the offence committed in the hotel. The evidence of hotel staff and CCTV footage showed no other person accompanied the main accused. (Paras 13-14) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 CrPC - Insufficient Evidence - The evidence recorded during trial, if unrebutted, would not be sufficient to lead to conviction of the appellant. Hence, the High Court's order summoning him was unsustainable. (Para 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in summoning the appellant under Section 319 CrPC to face trial based on the evidence recorded during the trial, particularly when the alleged occurrence took place in a hotel and the appellant's presence was only in the hospital.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 6th January, 2022 set aside. The application under Section 319 CrPC against the appellant stands dismissed.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC
- power to summon additional accused
- standard of evidence
- more than prima facie case
- strong and cogent evidence
- circumstantial evidence
- accomplice liability
