Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against an order of the High Court of Uttarakhand upholding the summoning of the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case of sexual assault on a six-year-old girl. The FIR was lodged by the victim's father on April 19, 2017, alleging that a teacher named Bablu Bisht had sexually assaulted his daughter over several months. The victim's initial statements under Section 161 CrPC on April 19 and 22, 2017, named only Bablu Bisht as the perpetrator. However, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC on April 24, 2017, she for the first time mentioned two men, one of whom wore spectacles. The appellant, Mani Pushpak Joshi, who was the manager of the school and wore spectacles, was subsequently summoned under Section 319 CrPC based on the victim's identification from a photograph. The trial court allowed the application, and the High Court dismissed the revision. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 319 CrPC, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that the power under Section 319 is discretionary and extraordinary, requiring strong and cogent evidence, more than a prima facie case but short of certainty of conviction. The Court noted that the victim's statements showed significant improvements: initially she named only one person, later she identified two, and the identification of the appellant was based solely on his spectacles from a photograph. The Court found that such evidence did not meet the threshold required for summoning under Section 319 CrPC. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court, and discharged the appellant from the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Summoning of Additional Accused - Power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from evidence led before court - Test is more than prima facie case as at framing of charge but short of satisfaction that evidence if unrebutted would lead to conviction - In the present case, the prosecutrix's statement improved over time, initially naming only one accused, and later identifying the appellant based on spectacles from a photograph - Held that such evidence does not meet the threshold for summoning under Section 319 CrPC (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the summoning of the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on the evidence of the prosecutrix which showed improvements and inconsistencies.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court, and discharged the appellant from the case.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence
- more than prima facie case but short of certainty of conviction
- improvement in victim's statement over time weakens evidentiary value
- identification based solely on spectacles from photograph insufficient
