Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which had affirmed the trial court's order summoning the appellants under Section 319 CrPC for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The case arose from the death of Shilpa, who was married to Dimpal @ Akash Deep on 26.01.2006. On 19.08.2012, Shilpa was set ablaze and succumbed to injuries the same night. Her dying declaration recorded by the Tehsildar at 09.40 PM stated that her sister-in-law Chanchal @ Babita poured kerosene and set her on fire. The complainant, Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1), lodged an FIR on 20.08.2012 naming nine accused including the appellants under Sections 304-B, 498A, 302 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, after investigation, the charge sheet was filed only against Chanchal @ Babita for Section 302 IPC, stating no offence was made out against the others. During trial, after examining PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellants, which the trial court allowed, and the High Court upheld in revision. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the dying declaration only named Chanchal @ Babita. The complaint and evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 only stated that the deceased told them that Chanchal @ Babita and all others set her on fire, without attributing any specific overt act to each appellant. The Court held that under Section 319 CrPC, the power must be exercised sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence appears, requiring much stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity. Applying this standard, the Court found no prima facie case against the appellants for Section 302 IPC. Regarding the possibility of summoning under Section 498A IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court noted that the allegations of dowry demand were vague, without particulars of time or nature, and not attributed to any specific appellant. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the trial court and High Court and discharged the appellants from the proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 CrPC - Summoning of Additional Accused - Standard of Proof - The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly only where strong and cogent evidence appears from the evidence led before the court, requiring much stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity, but short of satisfaction that evidence if unrebutted would lead to conviction (Paras 9-10).
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 CrPC - Dying Declaration - Specific Overt Acts - Where the dying declaration of the deceased only names one accused (Chanchal @ Babita) and the complaint and evidence of witnesses only state that the deceased told them that 'all others' set her on fire without attributing any specific overt act to each appellant, no prima facie case is made out for summoning the appellants under Section 302 IPC (Paras 11-12).
C) Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Dowry Demand - Vague Allegations - General statements in complaint and evidence that the groom side was not satisfied with dowry and used to demand dowry each time, without particulars of time, nature, or attribution to specific appellants, are insufficient to justify summoning under Section 498A IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court and High Court were justified in summoning the appellants under Section 319 CrPC for the offence under Section 302 IPC based on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, when the dying declaration only named Chanchal @ Babita and the complaint and evidence contained general allegations without specific overt acts.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the trial court and High Court summoning the appellants under Section 319 CrPC, and discharged the appellants from the proceedings.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence
- more than prima facie case at charge framing
- but short of conviction standard
- power to be exercised sparingly
- dying declaration must attribute specific overt acts
- general allegations of dowry demand without particulars insufficient for summoning under Section 498A IPC or Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4626 of 2017) and Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4560 of 2017)
Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others; Khusbu Gupta
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against order of High Court affirming trial court's summoning of appellants under Section 319 CrPC for offence under Section 302 IPC in a dowry death case.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought quashing of the order summoning them under Section 319 CrPC for trial under Section 302 IPC.
Filing Reason
Appellants were summoned as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC based on evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, despite dying declaration only naming Chanchal @ Babita and charge sheet being filed only against her.
Previous Decisions
Trial court allowed application under Section 319 CrPC and issued summons to appellants for trial under Section 302 IPC; High Court dismissed revision petition affirming trial court order.
Issues
Whether the trial court and High Court were justified in summoning the appellants under Section 319 CrPC for the offence under Section 302 IPC based on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, when the dying declaration only named Chanchal @ Babita and the complaint and evidence contained general allegations without specific overt acts.
Whether the appellants could be summoned under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, given the vague and general allegations of dowry demand without particulars.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that they were exonerated by the Investigating Officer when charge sheet was filed; power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only on strong and cogent evidence; dying declaration only names Chanchal @ Babita, so no prima facie case against appellants.
Respondent-State argued that based on evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, trial court satisfied itself of prima facie evidence indicating involvement of appellants, and High Court rightly declined to interfere.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 319 CrPC, the power to summon additional accused is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly only where strong and cogent evidence appears from the evidence led before the court, requiring much stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity. Where the dying declaration only names one accused and the complaint and evidence contain only general allegations without attributing specific overt acts to each appellant, no prima facie case is made out for summoning under Section 302 IPC. Similarly, vague and general allegations of dowry demand without particulars are insufficient to summon under Section 498A IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Judgment Excerpts
Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant.
Where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
In the dying declaration, deceased Shilpa has only mentioned the name of Chanchal @ Babita; but she has not mentioned the names of others.
Neither the complaint nor the evidence of witnesses indicates as to the role played by the appellants in the commission of the offence and which accused has committed what offence.
Procedural History
Marriage of deceased Shilpa with Dimpal @ Akash Deep on 26.01.2006. On 19.08.2012, Shilpa was set ablaze and died same night; dying declaration recorded naming Chanchal @ Babita. FIR lodged on 20.08.2012 against nine accused including appellants under Sections 304-B, 498A, 302 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Charge sheet filed only against Chanchal @ Babita for Section 302 IPC. During trial, after examination of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, prosecution filed application under Section 319 CrPC on 04.10.2016 to summon appellants. Trial court allowed application and issued summons. Appellants filed Criminal Revision No. 1354 of 2017 before High Court of Allahabad, which was dismissed on 25.04.2017. Appellants then filed special leave petitions before Supreme Court, which were granted and appeals heard.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 319
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 304-B, 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: 3, 4
