Power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused should be exercised only when strong evidence exists: Supreme Court

The power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a discretionary and an extraordinary power and the same should be exercised only sparingly and when strong and cogent evidence exists against such person, the Supreme Court recently held [Vikram Rathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another]..A division bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal held that mere suspicion cannot be the basis to summon an additional accused."It is not mere suspicion on the basis of which an additional accused could be summoned. Only where strong and cogent evidence is available against a person from the evidence produced before the court, which could lead to his conviction, that such a power could be exercised," the judgment said.The power under Section 319 CrPC cannot be exercised in a casual and cavaliar manner, the bench added.The Court, therefore, set aside a High Court order that had asked the trial court to decide afresh an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon a person as an additional accused..By way of background, a complaint was filed by the respondent against the unknown persons for the murder of his brother, who was an employee at the appellant's firm. Soon after, the wife of the deceased filed a complaint raising allegations against the appellant. During investigation, police found an eye witness to the murder whose statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC.After completion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet against two accused persons. The appellant was examined as a prosecution witness. After the statement of appellant was recorded, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant as accused solely on the basis of certain vague oral allegation made by one of the witnesses.The trial court dismissed the said application. The Allahabad High Court set aside the order of trial court and remanded the matter to it for fresh consideration.The appellant then moved the Supreme Court against the same..The top court noted that the law governing the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC is well settled. Placing reliance on its decision in Hardeep Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (2014), the Court observed that powers under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where circumstances warrant and where it requires much strong evidence that near 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 the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC," the Court said..In the present case, the Court was of the view that there was no eye-witness to the incident. The sole eye-witness whose statement was recorded by the police under Section 164 CrPC, had retracted his statement in court. This witness along with the brother of deceased also did not raise any finger against the appellant, the Court noted.Therefore, the Supreme Court was of the view that there was no sufficient evidence against the appellant if examined in the light of the law laid down in Hardeep Singh, with regard to summoning of the appellant as an additional accused.The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court..More than prima facie case necessary to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court.[Read Judgment]