The Allahabad High Court has set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Lakhimpur Kheri, which had summoned applicants as additional accused in a murder trial. The Court ruled that the trial court had exercised its power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in a "casual" and "improper" manner.
The case revolves around a complaint filed by Kanshi Ram (PW-1) alleging that his son, Shyam Prakash, was poisoned to death by a group of individuals, including the applicants, in a bid to seize his valuables. The victim had reportedly left his home in July 2000 to visit his brother-in-law’s house, carrying substantial cash and jewelry. According to the complainant, the accused, including the applicants, conspired to kill his son, which led to the filing of an FIR under Sections 147, 302, and 406 of the IPC.
However, after a detailed investigation, the police declared the applicants innocent and proceeded with charges against five other individuals. During the trial, three witnesses testified against the accused, but an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon the applicants as additional accused.
The trial court, in its September 2007 order, had summoned the applicants, stating that a "prima facie case" existed for their involvement. However, this decision was challenged by the applicants, who argued that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate the evidence before making such an order.
The High Court, while considering the matter, highlighted the importance of judicial discretion when invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that this power should not be exercised casually, as it is an extraordinary measure. It cited the landmark ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein the Supreme Court made it clear that "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."
The Court further noted that the trial court’s analysis of the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient. The deposition of the complainant alone was not enough to establish a prima facie case against the applicants, especially when their names had already been dismissed during the investigation phase. The Court observed, “the deposition of prosecution witness has to be tested in its substance” and reiterated that "the mere fact that the Court has power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to proceed against any person... does not mean that whenever in a statement recorded before the Court, name of any person is taken, the Court has to mechanically issue process under Section 319 Cr.P.C."
In light of these findings, the Court concluded that the impugned order was based on an improper assessment of the material evidence. The High Court quashed the trial court's decision, ruling that the application to summon the applicants as additional accused should be dismissed.
The petition was allowed, and the order dated September 14, 2007, summoning the applicants as additional accused was officially set aside. The case has now been sent back for further proceedings without the involvement of the applicants.
Picture Source :