38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, August 30, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Court Requires Strong Evidence To Summon An Accused U/S 319 CrPC: SC [Read Judgment]

By LawStreet News Network      28 February, 2019 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Court Requires Strong Evidence To Summon An Accused U/S 319 CrPC: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court on February 27, 2019, has held that the court can exercise power under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against an accused from the evidence led before the court.

A Bench comprising of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Subhash Reddy was hearing appeals filed against the order passed by the Allahabad High Court wherein it had affirmed the order of the trial court summoning the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Facts of the case

In this case, a complaint was filed by the father of the victim against the appellants under Sections 304-B, 498A, 302 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, the appellants were not named as accused in the chargesheet since they stood exonerated by the Investigating Officer.

During the trial, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution seeking to summon the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC stating that their names were mentioned in the FIR and also in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3. The Trial Court allowed the application on the ground that prima facie evidence was available against the appellants.

This order was challenged by the appellants who sought a revision of the same. The High Court dismissed the revision petition observing that there are specific allegations against the revisionists and therefore, there is no illegality or impropriety in the order of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court judgment

The court referred to Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. and stated that the section empowers the Court to proceed against any person not shown as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together along with the accused. It is fairly well settled that before the court exercises its jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at satisfaction that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as the accused in the case.

Reliance was placed on the judgments in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others and Sarabjit Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Another.

In Hardeep Singh case, it was held that the Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C 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.

Applying the principles laid down in the above case, the court held that there was no prima facie case made out for summoning the appellants and to proceed against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

The Court further added that under Section 319 Cr.P.C., a person can be added as an accused invoking the provisions not only for the same offence for which the accused is tried but for any offence; but that offence shall be such that in respect of which all the accused could be tried together.

With this view, the court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the appeals.



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
  PREVIOUS POST Two Autolifters Lifted
TRENDING NEWS

supreme-court-appoints-two-new-judges-justice-alok-aradhe-and-future-cji-vipul-pancholi
Trending Judiciary
Supreme Court Appoints Two New Judges: Justice Alok Aradhe & Future CJI Vipul Pancholi

SC gets two new judges — Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, with Pancholi set to be CJI in 2031. Oath administered by CJI Gavai.

29 August, 2025 02:23 PM
sc-to-hear-on-monday-pleas-to-extend-september-1-deadline-for-claims-objections-in-bihar-sir
Trending Judiciary
SC to hear on Monday pleas to extend September 8 deadline for claims, objections in Bihar SIR [Read Order]

SC to hear on Monday pleas seeking extension of Sept 8 deadline for filing claims, objections in Bihar voter list revision.

29 August, 2025 02:32 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-restores-mandatory-20-percent-deposit-for-suspension-of-sentence-in-cheque-bounce-case
Trending Judiciary
SC Restores Mandatory 20% Deposit for Suspension of Sentence in Cheque Bounce Case [Read Order]

SC sets aside P&H HC order; rules 20% deposit mandatory for suspension of sentence in ₹8.65 crore cheque bounce case under NI Act.

25 August, 2025 12:35 PM
18-former-judges-write-to-union-home-minister-amit-shah-criticizing-his-remarks-on-justice-b-sudershan-reddy
Trending Judiciary
18 Former Judges write to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, criticizing his remarks on Justice B Sudershan Reddy

18 ex-judges write to Union HM Amit Shah, criticizing his remarks on Justice B Sudershan Reddy, stressing judicial independence and dignity.

25 August, 2025 03:09 PM
sc-stays-investigation-into-firs-against-csds-co-director-sanjay-kumar
Trending Judiciary
SC stays investigation into FIRs against CSDS co director Sanjay Kumar

SC stays probe into FIRs against CSDS co-director Sanjay Kumar over Maharashtra polling data post; says multiple cases show harassment motive.

25 August, 2025 03:14 PM
influencers-indulging-in-commercial-speech-cant-claim-fundamental-right-sc
Trending CelebStreet
Influencers indulging in commercial speech can't claim fundamental right: SC

SC: Influencers making commercial speech can’t claim fundamental rights; must apologize and act responsibly towards community sensitivities.

25 August, 2025 04:18 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email