Merits of evidence cannot be gone into at stage of summons to accused during trial: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently criticised a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that effectively declared persons accused in a criminal case to be innocent at the stage of summons itself. [Sandeep Kumar vs State of Haryana and anr].A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that the High Court had wrongly allowed a revision petition against a trial court's order of summons by appreciating evidence at that stage.The bench further found that the High Court’s presumption that the accused was innocent was totally uncalled for since such conclusions ought to be drawn after trial."Totally uncalled for presumption has been made by the High Court in favour of the revisionist, declaring him to be innocent ... The merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial, by cross examination of the witnesses and scrutiny of the Court. This is not to be done at the stage of Section 319 (of the Code of Criminal Procedure), though this is precisely what the High Court has done in the present case,” the Supreme Court said.The bench added that the entire purpose of a criminal trial is to go into the truth of the matter."Once there is satisfaction of the Court that there is evidence before it that an accused has committed an offence, the court can proceed against such a person. At the stage of summoning an accused, there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court,” the Supreme Court said.The top court, therefore, allowed an appeal filed by an informant (appellant) in the criminal case..By way of background, three accused persons had been summoned by a trial in connection with a case involving allegations of an armed break-in, firing of a weapon, and assault.They were earlier named in the criminal complaint but not in the chargesheet. This prompted the informant to file a plea in the trial court to summon the three accused. The trial court, in turn, allowed the informant’s plea.The High Court, however, set aside the trial court’s order allowing the summons, after one of the accused men filed a revision plea. The High Court further opined that the accused in question had been falsely implicated since he had not used a weapon and had fled from the scene..The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the High Court’s approach. The top court noted that the accused in question fled the scene only after the alleged crime of being part of an “unlawful assembly” had been committed."In our opinion, whereas the trial court was absolutely correct to have summoned the accused based on the evidence of PW-9, the High Court committed a grave error in allowing the revision of the accused ... it was absolutely necessary for the trial court to have summoned the three accused, including the revisionist. The reasoning given by the High Court, cannot be accepted at the stage of consideration of application under Section 319 CrPC,” the Supreme Court held..The Supreme Court also pointed out that for the offence of unlawful assembly, one simply has to be a part of such an assembly. There is no need for any specific individual role or action to be implicated for this offence, the Court said."A plain reading of Section 149 IPC (read with Section 141 IPC), makes it clear that no overt act needs to be assigned to a member of an unlawful assembly,” the judgment stated.The Court proceeded to allow the appeal and the three accused were directed to face trial..Advocates Ram Naresh Yadav, Suryavir, and Sunil Kumar appeared for the informant, one Sandeep Kumar. Deputy Advocate General Vishal Mahajan and advocate Monika Gusain represented the Haryana government. Advocates Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Ishaan George, Raveena Lalit, Abhinav Aggarwal, Krishnagopal Abhay, Runjhun Garg and Himanshu Vats represented the accused..[Read Judgment]