Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal revision petitions filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The petitioners in Crl.RP.No.8/2019 are Shakila and Farzana, and the petitioner in Crl.RP.No.136/2019 is Dr. Susheela. They challenged an order dated 01.12.2018 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in S.C. No.3/2015, whereby summons were issued to them under Section 319 CrPC to be added as additional accused in a murder trial. The background is that the State, through the Circle Inspector of Amarthur Police Station, had filed a charge sheet against certain accused for offences including murder. During the trial, the prosecution examined witnesses, including the petitioners who were originally cited as witnesses. Based on their testimony, the trial court suo motu issued summons under Section 319 CrPC, directing them to appear as additional accused. The petitioners contended that the trial court erred in issuing summons without there being any evidence against them. They argued that their testimony did not implicate themselves in the crime. The State opposed the petitions, submitting that the trial court had correctly applied Section 319 CrPC. The High Court analyzed the scope of Section 319 CrPC, relying on precedents that the power to summon additional accused should be exercised only if the evidence discloses a strong suspicion that the person has committed an offence. The court found that the evidence of the petitioners did not satisfy this test. The witnesses had not stated anything that directly implicated the petitioners. Therefore, the trial court's order was set aside. The High Court allowed both revision petitions and quashed the summons issued to the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Summoning Additional Accused - Test of Strong Suspicion - The trial court issued summons to three witnesses as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC based on their testimony. The High Court held that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised only if the evidence discloses a strong suspicion that the person has committed an offence, not merely a prima facie case. The court found that the evidence against the petitioners did not meet this threshold, as the witnesses had not implicated them directly. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 397/401 - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope - The High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, can interfere with an order under Section 319 CrPC if it is perverse or based on no evidence. The court set aside the summons as the trial court had not applied its mind properly. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in issuing summons under Section 319 CrPC to the petitioners (witnesses) as additional accused in a murder case without there being sufficient evidence against them.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both criminal revision petitions and set aside the order dated 01.12.2018 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in S.C. No.3/2015, thereby quashing the summons issued to the petitioners under Section 319 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC requires more than prima facie case
- strong suspicion test
- power to summon additional accused
- revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 CrPC
