Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which set aside an order of the trial court summoning the second respondent (husband of the deceased) under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The appellant, mother of the deceased Juhi Arshi, alleged that her daughter died under suspicious circumstances in her matrimonial home on 10 June 2017. The FIR was registered on 14 June 2017, and the body was exhumed twice but was in an advanced stage of decomposition. The charge-sheet was filed only against one Manoj Shrivastav under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. During the trial, the appellant deposed as PW-1, stating that the second respondent was the only person present with the deceased at the time of death, that the body was buried hastily without informing the police, and that injury marks were visible on the deceased's neck, hands, and legs. The trial court, relying on these circumstances and the principles in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, summoned the second respondent under Section 319 CrPC. The High Court, in a Section 482 CrPC application, set aside the summoning order, holding that the evidence did not make out a prima facie case. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the trial court's order. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence at the summoning stage and substituting its own view. The test under Section 319 CrPC is whether the evidence discloses a prima facie case against the proposed accused, and the trial court had correctly applied this test. The circumstances, including the sole presence of the husband, the improbability of suicide, the hasty burial, and the failure to explain injuries, were sufficient to summon him. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised to ensure that no guilty person escapes trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 CrPC - Power to summon additional accused - Test for summoning - The trial court must be satisfied that the evidence adduced discloses a prima facie case against the proposed accused, and the standard is more than mere suspicion but less than a prima facie case for conviction - Held that the High Court erred in reappreciating the evidence and substituting its own view for that of the trial court (Paras 13-20). B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 103 and 114 - Burden of proof and presumption - Special knowledge of events within the exclusive knowledge of the accused - In a case of unnatural death in the matrimonial home, the husband is expected to explain the circumstances - Held that the trial court rightly drew an adverse inference against the second respondent for his failure to explain the injuries and the haste in burial (Paras 9-11). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Circumstantial evidence - The presence of the husband alone with the deceased, the improbability of suicide given the height of the channel, the absence of a stool, and the hasty burial without informing the police constitute sufficient material to summon the husband under Section 319 CrPC - Held that the trial court's order was based on a correct appreciation of the evidence (Paras 9-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the trial court summoning the second respondent under Section 319 CrPC on the ground that the evidence did not make out a prima facie case against him.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 12 April 2019, and restored the trial court's order dated 29 January 2019 summoning the second respondent under Section 319 CrPC. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC
- Power to summon additional accused
- Test for summoning under Section 319 CrPC
- Prima facie case
- Reappreciation of evidence at summoning stage
- Section 306 IPC
- Abetment of suicide
- Dowry death
- Circumstantial evidence
- Special knowledge under Sections 103 and 114 Evidence Act
