Criminal Revision against an order summoning accused parents to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after the victim disclosed their involvement in abduction and sodomy. The High Court held the lower court exercised power correctly based on probable implication from witness statements, dismissing the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 80 AFR
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 70 of 2018
Revisionist :- Lallan Babu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pramod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
2
accused Raj @ Guddu.
(a) An F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 150 of 2015 was lodged by one Awadhesh Kumar (Father of victim) against the accused Raj @ Guddu under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. stating that his minor daughter (name of victim is withheld by me), aged about 15 years was seduced and abducted by accused Raj @ Guddu on 3.4.2015 at about 1:00 PM. Matter was investigated by Investigating Officer, who submitted charge sheet against the accused Raj @ Guddu.
(b) During the course of trial, statement of PW-1 Informant and PW-2 victim were recorded. PW-2 supported the prosecution case and disclosed the involvement of revisionists. (c) PW-2 in her statement has stated that when she went to the shop of accused Raj @ Guddu on 3.4.2015 at about 11:00 AM, his parents (present revisionists) gave Rs.5000/- and provoked to go with Raj @ Guddu to Gujrat, thereafter, she went to Gujrat with Raj where she lived with him for about 2 ½ months.
(d) PW-1 Awadhesh Kumar (Informant) moved an application 39-B under Section 319 stating that victim PW-2 disclosed the involvement of Lallan Babu and Smt. Rekha in the present case and it is necessary to summon them for trial, application was objected by accused Raj @ Guddu by filing his objection / application no. 39-B. After hearing both parties and appreciating the entire record
3
as well as statement of PWs-1 and 2, trial court allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned Lallan Babu and Smt. Smt. Rekha for facing trial in the aforesaid sections, relying the statement of PW-2 Victim.
“ Section 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2)Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."
Revision No. 1216 of 2005, decided on 09.09.2016 , this Court held as under :-
“Whether evidence is correct or not or credible
4
enough or not to sustain conviction and punishment is a matter which would be seen after revisionist put in appearance, lead evidence and thereafter Trial Court examine the entire evidence and record its finding thereon, but at the stage of summoning of revisionist on the basis of aforesaid statement in Trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the probable defence of accused summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be examined for the first time in a revisional jurisdiction by this Court.”
"(i) What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised?
(ii) Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?
(iii) Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?
(iv) What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted?
(v) Does the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?"
Question Nos. (i) and (iii)
A. I n Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2004 (13) SCC 9 , the Constitution Bench
5
has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Judge need not wait till 'evidence' under Section 319 Cr.P.C. becomes available for summoning an additional accused.
Section 319 Cr.P.C., significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Cr.P.C.; and under Section 398 Cr.P.C. are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Cr.P.C. Materials coming before the Court in course of such enquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet.
In view of the above position the word 'evidence' in Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial.
Question No. (ii)
A. Considering the fact that under Section 319 Cr.P.C. a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) Cr.P.C. the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by crossexamination.
Question No. (iv)
A. Though under Section 319(4)(b) Cr.P.C. the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning
6
a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different.
Question No. (v)
A. A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been chargesheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, insofar as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Sections 300 and 398 Cr.P.C. has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh.
" ... since it is a discretionary power given to the court Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so
7
warrant. The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge-sheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.”
"The standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an Accused person under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against the Accused person. The power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly. As held in Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2008) 14 SCC 51, "the power of summoning an additional Accused Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly. The key words in Section are "it appears from the evidence"."any person"."has committed any offence". It is not, therefore, that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of such person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure would be used by the court." (emphasis added)
8
commission of crime and they also participated in incident . Whether evidence of witnesses is correct or not, credible enough or not to sustain conviction, is a matter which would be seen after revisionists put in appearance, lead evidence and thereafter, Trial Court examines the entire evidence and records its finding thereon. At the stage of summoning of the revisionists on the basis of aforesaid statements for trial, probable defence of accusedrevisionists summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be examined for the first time under the revisional jurisdiction by this Court.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed a manifest error in summoning persons not named in the FIR or charge-sheet to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on witness statements.
Whether the degree of satisfaction required for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. allows reliance on examination-in-chief without cross-examination.
Whether the materials disclosed during trial proceedings were sufficient to imply complicity warranting the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Arya v. State of U.P. and OthersExplained¶27
Anil Arya v. State of U.P. and Others, Criminal Revision No. 1216 of 2005
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and othersExplained¶31
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2014 (3) SCC 92 · Who else cites this
Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.Referred¶41
Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2004 (13) SCC 9 · Who else cites this
Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of RajasthanFollowed¶53
Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706 · Who else cites this
Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersFollowed¶57
Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2019) 7 SCC 806 · Who else cites this
Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan and anotherFollowed¶57
Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2008) 14 SCC 51 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lallan Babu
Smt. Rekha
State of U.P.
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
