Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by Pandurang, Sunil, and Sameer Deshpande (the petitioners) challenging an order passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The order summoned the petitioners as additional accused in Special Case (SC/ST) No.38/2013, which was registered for offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution had initially filed a charge-sheet against only one accused, Maharaya, while dropping five other persons, including the petitioners. During the trial, after examining 10 witnesses, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the petitioners and two others, claiming that evidence revealed their presence at the time of the incident. The trial court allowed the application on 28.02.2015, but that order was set aside by the High Court in Crl.P.200037/2015, with a direction to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92. On remand, the trial court again allowed the application, leading to the present revision. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the witnesses had only stated that the petitioners were present at the scene, without attributing any specific overt acts to them. The court held that the power under Section 319 CrPC requires evidence that makes it probable that the person summoned has committed the offence, and mere presence without specific acts is insufficient. The court also noted that the test for summoning under Section 319 is stricter than for framing charges. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and discharged the petitioners from the proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 CrPC - Summoning Additional Accused - Test for summoning - The court held that the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised only if the evidence adduced during trial makes it probable that the person summoned has committed the offence, and not merely on a prima facie case. Mere presence at the scene without specific overt acts is insufficient. (Paras 5-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 CrPC - Discretionary Power - The court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised with caution, as it involves a person being put on trial. The test is stricter than for framing charges under Section 227/228 CrPC. (Paras 5-6) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 CrPC - Evidence Required - The court held that the evidence must show a reasonable prospect of conviction against the person sought to be summoned. Vague allegations of presence without specific acts do not meet this threshold. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in summoning the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on the evidence of witnesses that they were present at the scene of the incident, without any specific overt acts attributed to them.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, set aside the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Special Case (SC/ST) No.38/2013, and discharged the petitioners from the proceedings.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC requires evidence that makes it probable that the person summoned has committed the offence
- not merely a prima facie case
- mere presence at the scene without specific overt acts is insufficient
- the power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised with caution
- the test for summoning additional accused is stricter than for framing charges.
