Case Note & Summary
The case involved criminal petitions filed by the State of Karnataka and the complainant challenging an order of the trial court which had rejected an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to summon one Harish D.K. as an additional accused in a session case for offences under Sections 307, 324, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The incident occurred on 2 July 2014, leading to registration of Crime No.99/2014. The complainant alleged that accused No.1 (Krishnegowda) and accused No.2 (Harish D.K.) assaulted her with a chopper and a club, causing grievous injuries. However, after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on 30 September 2014 only against Krishnegowda, dropping Harish D.K. on the ground that he was a practicing advocate and was not present at the scene. During the trial, prosecution witnesses (PW-1, the victim; PW-2, her brother; and PW-3, an independent coolie) testified on 13 March 2019, deposing that Harish D.K. actively participated in the assault. Consequently, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon Harish D.K. as an accused. The trial court, by order dated 17 December 2021, dismissed the application, observing that the investigating officer had not found evidence against him and the witnesses' statements were not worthy of credence. Aggrieved, the State and the complainant approached the High Court. The High Court noted that Section 319 CrPC is an enabling provision that authorizes the court to proceed against any person not already an accused, if the evidence on record indicates involvement in the offence. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Sagar v. State of U.P. and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which emphasize that the power is discretionary but must be exercised when strong and cogent evidence emerges. The court found that the trial court had completely overlooked the depositions of witnesses, who consistently stated that Harish D.K. attacked the victim with a club, and the medical evidence corroborated the injuries. It also noted that the investigating officer's conclusion in the charge sheet does not bind the trial court, and discharge by the police is not a bar to summoning under Section 319 CrPC. The High Court observed that the trial court's order was perfunctory, without any discussion of the evidence, and therefore unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court allowed both petitions, quashed the trial court's order, and directed the trial court to issue summons to Harish D.K. and proceed with the joint trial in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summoning of Additional Accused - Scope of Section 319 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - Section 319 is an enabling provision allowing the court to proceed against any person not being an accused if evidence on record indicates involvement; the power is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. Held, if witness statements and medical evidence corroborate the role of the person, the court must summon him despite police dropping him from charge sheet. (Paras 8, 11, 12) B) Criminal Procedure - Section 319 CrPC - Effect of Police Discharge - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - The fact that the investigating officer dropped the name of the accused from the charge sheet does not bar the court from summoning him at the stage of trial if evidence led shows his involvement. Held, trial court cannot reject application solely on the ground that the person was not chargesheeted; the evidence at trial must be considered. (Paras 8, 11, 12) C) Criminal Procedure - Section 319 CrPC - Standard of Evidence Required - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - The test is whether the evidence shows a strong and cogent case against the person sought to be summoned, not mere suspicion. Held, direct testimony of eye-witnesses and medical evidence of injuries is sufficient; trial court must not weigh evidence deeply but see if prima facie case exists. (Paras 10, 11) D) Criminal Procedure - Section 319 CrPC - Obligation to Record Reasons - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - Trial court's order rejecting an application under Section 319 must be a speaking order disclosing application of mind to the evidence. Held, an order that merely states that the person was dropped in charge sheet and the application is dismissed without discussing evidence is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC to summon Harish D.K. as an additional accused when prosecution witnesses had deposed about his involvement in the crime.
Final Decision
Both criminal petitions allowed. The order dated 17-12-2021 rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC is quashed. The prosecution's application to summon Harish D.K. as an accused is allowed, and the trial court is directed to issue summons to him and proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Power under Section 319 CrPC is an enabling provision to proceed against any person not being an accused if evidence indicates involvement
- discharge by police does not bar summoning
- evidence at trial must show strong and cogent evidence of involvement
- trial court must record reasons
- eye-witness testimony and medical evidence sufficient to summon.
