The Supreme Court on Thursday held that mere disclosure of names of persons by a witness does not make for strong and cogent evidence to make the persons stand trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..In the judgment rendered by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, the Court held,.“The additional accused cannot be summoned under Section 319 of the Code in casual and cavalier manner in the absence of strong and cogent evidence.”.The Court added that under Section 319 of the CrPC, additional accused persons can be summoned only if there is more than a prima facie case against them as is required at the time of framing of charges but less than the satisfaction required to convict the accused..The judgment was delivered in an appeal filed against an order of the Madras High Court which had directed the Appellants in the case to be impleaded as accused in the trial. The High Court had set aside a trial court’s order which had dismissed the application for summoning additional accused under Section 319 ..In the instant case, a large group of persons including the complainant’s wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law had allegedly trespassed onto the complainant’s property bearing weapons like crowbar, knife, ripper etc and “scolded him”. The group had demanded money towards maintenance from the complainant. The group then took turmeric bundles from the complainant’s house and left in a van..A First Information Report was filed and on the basis of the same, the complainant’s statement was recorded by the Investigating officer. During the course of recording of the statement, the names of the appellants were not disclosed by the complainant. Thereafter, a report was filed by the Investigating officer..Subsequently, an application under Section 319 of CrPC was filed to summon twenty persons as additional accused. The trial court dismissed this application. The same was challenged in Madras High Court by way of a Revision Petition. The High Court allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the trial court’s order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the Supreme Court..The Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab wherein it was held that the jurisdiction under Section 319 of the CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in cases where strong and cogent evidence occurs. The power under this provision must not be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner..The Supreme Court, after hearing the Counsel for both the parties concluded that the High Court’s order was not sustainable in law. As regards the instant case, the Court has said,.“The present case is basically a matrimonial dispute wherein, the husband who is the Complainant has levelled allegations against the wife and her other family members. Though in the FIR, Complainant has mentioned that 15 women and 35 men came by vehicles but the names of 11 persons alone were disclosed in the First Information Report.”.The Court noted that the names of the appellants were not mentioned in the statement given by the complainant..“In the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code during the course of investigation, the Complainant and his witnesses have not disclosed any other name except the 11 persons named in the FIR.”.The allegations made in the FIR were vague and could not be used anytime to include any person in the absence of evidence, the Court added..“…the Complainant has sought to cast net wide so as to include numerous other persons while moving an application under Section 319 of the Code without there being primary evidence about their role in house trespass or of threatening the Complainant. Large number of people will not come to the house of the complainant and would return without causing any injury as they were said to be armed with weapons like crowbar, knife and ripper etc….In the First Information Report or in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code, the names of the appellants or any other description have not been given so as to identify them. The allegations in the FIR are vague and can be used any time to include any person in the absence of description in the First Information Report to identify such person.”.Thus, there is an absence of cogent and strong evidence..Under Section 319 of the Code additional accused can be summoned only if there is more than prima facie case as is required at the time of framing of charge. They cannot be summoned in a casual and cavaliar manner, the Court concluded..On account of this, the Court set aside the order passed by the Madras High Court and restored the trial Court’s order..Read the judgment below..Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that mere disclosure of names of persons by a witness does not make for strong and cogent evidence to make the persons stand trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..In the judgment rendered by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, the Court held,.“The additional accused cannot be summoned under Section 319 of the Code in casual and cavalier manner in the absence of strong and cogent evidence.”.The Court added that under Section 319 of the CrPC, additional accused persons can be summoned only if there is more than a prima facie case against them as is required at the time of framing of charges but less than the satisfaction required to convict the accused..The judgment was delivered in an appeal filed against an order of the Madras High Court which had directed the Appellants in the case to be impleaded as accused in the trial. The High Court had set aside a trial court’s order which had dismissed the application for summoning additional accused under Section 319 ..In the instant case, a large group of persons including the complainant’s wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law had allegedly trespassed onto the complainant’s property bearing weapons like crowbar, knife, ripper etc and “scolded him”. The group had demanded money towards maintenance from the complainant. The group then took turmeric bundles from the complainant’s house and left in a van..A First Information Report was filed and on the basis of the same, the complainant’s statement was recorded by the Investigating officer. During the course of recording of the statement, the names of the appellants were not disclosed by the complainant. Thereafter, a report was filed by the Investigating officer..Subsequently, an application under Section 319 of CrPC was filed to summon twenty persons as additional accused. The trial court dismissed this application. The same was challenged in Madras High Court by way of a Revision Petition. The High Court allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the trial court’s order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the Supreme Court..The Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab wherein it was held that the jurisdiction under Section 319 of the CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in cases where strong and cogent evidence occurs. The power under this provision must not be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner..The Supreme Court, after hearing the Counsel for both the parties concluded that the High Court’s order was not sustainable in law. As regards the instant case, the Court has said,.“The present case is basically a matrimonial dispute wherein, the husband who is the Complainant has levelled allegations against the wife and her other family members. Though in the FIR, Complainant has mentioned that 15 women and 35 men came by vehicles but the names of 11 persons alone were disclosed in the First Information Report.”.The Court noted that the names of the appellants were not mentioned in the statement given by the complainant..“In the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code during the course of investigation, the Complainant and his witnesses have not disclosed any other name except the 11 persons named in the FIR.”.The allegations made in the FIR were vague and could not be used anytime to include any person in the absence of evidence, the Court added..“…the Complainant has sought to cast net wide so as to include numerous other persons while moving an application under Section 319 of the Code without there being primary evidence about their role in house trespass or of threatening the Complainant. Large number of people will not come to the house of the complainant and would return without causing any injury as they were said to be armed with weapons like crowbar, knife and ripper etc….In the First Information Report or in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code, the names of the appellants or any other description have not been given so as to identify them. The allegations in the FIR are vague and can be used any time to include any person in the absence of description in the First Information Report to identify such person.”.Thus, there is an absence of cogent and strong evidence..Under Section 319 of the Code additional accused can be summoned only if there is more than prima facie case as is required at the time of framing of charge. They cannot be summoned in a casual and cavaliar manner, the Court concluded..On account of this, the Court set aside the order passed by the Madras High Court and restored the trial Court’s order..Read the judgment below..Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.