Supreme Court allowed an appeal arguing that evidence was insufficient to summon the appellant as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The Court set aside the High Court order and remanded, holding evidence did not satisfy the statutory threshold for conviction if unrebutted.
Impugned order dated 6th January, 2022 passed by the High Court set aside; appeal allowed.
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.
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). OF 2022
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3746 of 2022)
NAVEEN
….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2022.11.02 10:27:46 IST Reason:
order dated 6th January, 2022 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, setting aside order dated 10th February, 2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
1
Bhiwani, Haryana, whereby the learned trial Judge rejected the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant (accused) to face trial in Sessions Case No.59 of 2018 with reference to FIR No.156 dated 12th March, 2018 registered under Sections 307, 364, 366, 376 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station City Bhiwani, Haryana.
and acquaintances but could not find her whereabouts.
2
Later, she came to know that the victim girl was admitted in Sunflag Hospital, Rohtak. When they reached the hospital at 9.00 p.m., they were told that the victim girl was in ICU Ward and two boys, Arjun and Naveen, sons of Balwan Jat, resident of Beri, District Jhajjar, had brought the victim girl to the hospital in unconscious state.
3
Nand) were found innocent and, therefore, the abovenamed persons were kept in column no.2 and subsequently, accused Arjun was arrested and after completion of investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.PC was submitted before the Ld. Ilaqa Magistrate on 5th June, 2018 against the accused Arjun. After chargesheet came to be filed, charges were framed against accused Arjun on 6th August, 2018.
4
Naveen and Mehar Singh as accomplices of accused Arjun because these two persons were also present in the hospital with the deceased and their presence is established from the CCTV footage of Sunflag Hospital, Rohtak and they should also be summoned to face trial with accused Arjun.
5
occurrence had taken place in the hotel and not in the hospital where the accused had taken the
deceased/prosecutrix and if the proposed accused persons had visited the hospital, in no manner, they become accomplices with the respondent/accused who was facing trial.
6
Singh v. State of Punjab and others1 and paras 105 and 106 which are relevant for the purpose are reproduced
hereunder:
“ 105. Power under Section 319 CrPC 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. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of crossexamination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In
1 (2014) 3 SCC 92
7
the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “ for which such person could be tried together with the accused ”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.”
8
proposed, visited the hospital, that in no manner could make him an accomplice with the accused Arjun and apart from the evidence of the complainant PW.10, the statement of other prosecution witnesses, PW.6 Mahipal, the Hotel Manager and PW.8 Deepchand, Waiter, no one has accompanied the deceased other than accused Arjun. The CCTV footage of the hotel where the alleged occurrence has taken place which came on record during the course of trial indicates that no other person had visited the hotel except Arjun who was made accused and faced trial.
9
presence of two boys was in the hospital and not in the hotel as per the case of the prosecution and this what was deposed by the prosecution witnesses whose statements were recorded during the course of trial as PW.6 and PW.8 and also the record of the CCTV footage of the hotel as a part of evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
10
12th March, 2018 registered under Sections 302, 307, 364, 366, 376 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station City Bhiwani where by judgment dated 28th July, 2022 accused
Arjun has been held guilty and convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment against which the appeal has been filed in the High Court at the instance of accused Arjun that may be decided uninfluenced by the observations made on its own merits in accordance with law.
….………………………J. (AJAY RASTOGI)
…………………………….J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 01, 2022.
11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the evidence recorded during the course of trial was sufficient to summon the additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order dismissing the application under Section 319 CrPC.
Whether the circumstantial evidence against the appellant was sufficient to lead to conviction if unrebutted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶38
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Naveen
State of Haryana
Rastogi
Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
