Supreme Court Clarifies Section 319 CrPC Power and Summons of Un-Chargesheeted Accused

The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the defacto-complainant, challenging a High Court of Judicature at Allahabad order which had quashed the summons issued against Rajendra Prasad Yadav (Respondent No.2) under Section 319 CrPC.

Case Background The stemmed from an incident from 2017 which led to two First Information Reports (FIRs). The first FIR (Case Crime No. 303 of 2017) was lodged by the appellant/complainant, Shiv Baran, under Sections 302, 307, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), against four individuals, including Rajendra Prasad Yadav (Respondent No.2). It was alleged that these accused, with common intention, entered appellant's house and assaulted his brother, who later succumbed to injuries. However, the Investigating Officer (IO), after investigation held that Rajendra Prasad had no role in the crime and filed a chargesheet only against other accused.

Subsequently, the prosecution witnesses were examined during the trial and their deposition points to Rajendra Prasad Yadav's (Respondent No.2) involvement in the case. Based on these depositions, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC praying to add Rajendra's name as a co-accused; whose name was initially dropped from the chargesheet. Although, the prayer was initially rejected by the Sessions Court, it was later allowed by the Trial Court following a remand by the High Court.

Respondent No.2 challenged this summoning order before the High Court, which set it aside and opined that PW-1 had not ascribed any role to Rajendra, and the testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 were insufficient as they lacked specific details regarding the incident or motive, asserting that a person cannot be summoned without cogent prima facie material.

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court after meticulously analyzing the High Court's decision in light of Section 319 CrPC and established precedents, ultimately found that the High Court's approach is erroneous in setting aside the Trial Court decision.

The Apex Court reiterated that Section 319 CrPC (Section 358 BNSS) is an enabling provision which empowers the Courts to proceed against any person, even if not originally cited as an accused, based on evidence collected during inquiry or trial. The object is to ensure no guilty person escapes the process of law. However, the Apex Court emphasized that this power must be exercised with utmost caution and not in a casual or cavalier manner, only when there is cogent material necessitating such impleadment to advance justice.

While citing Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the Apex Court observed that the word 'evidence' in Section 319(1) CrPC includes statements made in examination-in-chief, and that the Court does not need to wait for cross-examination for such evidence to be considered. The prerequisite for exercising this power is similar to the prima facie view a Magistrate takes for cognizance. The test of satisfaction is "more than a prima facie case required at the time of framing of charges, but less than the satisfaction that would warrant conviction" . It requires "much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity". The Courts should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage, as the expression used is 'such person could be tried', not 'should be tried' .

Applying these principles to the facts, the Supreme Court found that PW1 (Shiv Baran Yadav) had consistently named Rajendra (or Rajesh, which was clarified to be the same person) in his statements, and a specific role (carrying a baton/stick) was assigned to him by all three eyewitnesses. The Apex Court observed that the High Court had erred by conducting a "mini trial" and applying the same standard for deciding the Section 319 application as is ordinarily used at the end of the trial for conviction. The High Court's observations regarding the absence of motive or common intention were deemed premature, as these are matters for final adjudication.

The Supreme Court thus, concluded that while the power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, it is obligatory for the Courts to exercise this power where the evidence reveals the complicity of the prospective accused.

Coram:Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.