Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Criminal Procedure Case — Reassessment of Evidence Required. The court emphasized that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence exists.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This case involved an appeal against the invocation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the Sessions Judge, Khiri, to summon the appellant based on the deposition of the second respondent, the wife of the deceased. The FIR was lodged on 27.06.2015, alleging that the deceased, who was the appellant's driver, was murdered by the appellant with the help of his friends. The second respondent testified that her husband had informed her he was going to Gola with the appellant and later went missing, leading to the discovery of an unidentified dead body. The Sessions Judge initially summoned the appellant based on the second respondent's testimony, which was challenged in the High Court and subsequently led to this appeal. The appellant contended that the courts erred in law by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. solely based on the untested deposition. The Supreme Court, referencing precedents, emphasized that the invocation of this power requires strong and cogent evidence, more than just a prima facie case. The court found that the evidence presented did not meet the necessary threshold and directed the Sessions Judge to reconsider the case with the appropriate legal standards in mind. The appeal was allowed, and the previous orders were set aside, with directions for a fresh consideration of the matter (Paras 1-5).

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Invocation of Power - Standards for Invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - The court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence exists against a person, not merely based on probability. The court directed the Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter afresh in light of established principles (Paras 105-106).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was correctly invoked based on the evidence presented.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and the order of the Sessions Judge summoning the appellant, directing a fresh consideration of the matter in light of established legal principles.

Law Points

  • Section 319 Cr.P.C.
  • discretionary power
  • strong and cogent evidence
  • prima facie case
  • invocation of power
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (09) 285

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 OF 2021

2021-09-13

K.M. JOSEPH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

Gaurav Srivastava, Adarsh Upadhyay, Sansriti Pathak

RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA

THE STATE OF U. P. & ANR.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal regarding the invocation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to challenge the summons issued under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Filing Reason

The second respondent alleged that her husband was murdered by the appellant.

Previous Decisions

The Sessions Judge's order to summon the appellant was upheld by the High Court.

Issues

Whether the invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. was justified based on the evidence presented.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the courts erred in law by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. based solely on untested deposition. The respondents contended that the deposition sufficed for invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires strong and cogent evidence, more than a mere prima facie case, to justify summoning an individual.

Judgment Excerpts

The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant.

Procedural History

The FIR was lodged on 27.06.2015, followed by police investigation and chargesheet against three persons. The Sessions Judge summoned the appellant on 11.09.2018, which was challenged in the High Court, leading to this appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 319
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Partial Relief to Judicial Service Candidates in Reservation Dispute. The court found that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission improperly applied reservation principles, leading to excess selection of women candidates contrar...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes High Court's Finding on Detention Period Under Preventive Detention Act — Clarifies Legal Interpretation of Detention Authority's Powers.