On Wednesday, while clarifying the strict limits on the exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Allahabad High Court held that a trial court may summon an additional accused only on the basis of evidence recorded during trial, and not on materials contained in the charge-sheet or the case diary. Dismissing a criminal revision arising from a dowry death prosecution, the Court emphasised that the jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC is exceptional in nature and cannot be invoked on a mere prima facie satisfaction.
The revision petition was filed by the father of a deceased woman, assailing an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court rejecting his application under Section 319 CrPC. The application sought the summoning of the deceased woman’s father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law as additional accused in a case registered under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The prosecution's case alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands after marriage and was found dead under suspicious circumstances. While the FIR named multiple family members, the investigating agency, after recording statements during the investigation, filed a charge sheet only against the husband. During the trial, after the examination of two prosecution witnesses, the revisionist sought the summoning of the remaining relatives under Section 319 CrPC, which was declined by the Trial Court.
The revisionist contended that the statements of the informant and another prosecution witness recorded during the trial disclosed the involvement of the other family members, thereby justifying their summoning as additional accused. It was argued that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the evidentiary threshold under Section 319 CrPC was satisfied.
The State and the opposite parties opposed the plea, contending that the relatives were living separately from the deceased and her husband, and that the evidence on record did not go beyond general allegations. It was submitted that the investigating officer had found no material against them and that the Trial Court had correctly applied the settled principles governing Section 319 CrPC.
Justice Chawan Prakash reiterated that the expression “evidence” used in the provision has a narrow and specific connotation. Relying on authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the Court held that materials collected during an investigation cannot be treated as evidence for the purpose of summoning an additional accused.
The Court observed that “The law with regard to the summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is settled that this power is an extraordinary power, which should be used sparingly with circumspection and while passing the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. court must consider whether more than prima-facie case is made out, or not. For summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. mere prima-facie case is not sufficient.”
Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, as well as subsequent rulings of the Supreme Court, the High Court noted that the word “evidence” in Section 319(1) CrPC is confined to evidence adduced before the trial court. It further held that reliance on charge-sheet material or the case diary is impermissible, as such material does not constitute evidence in the strict sense.
The Court noted that the investigating officer, examined as a prosecution witness, had stated that the husband was living separately with the deceased and that the dowry demand was attributable to him alone. In this backdrop, the Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court’s conclusion that the evidentiary threshold required for invoking Section 319 CrPC was not met.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the High Court held that the order rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC was passed with proper reasoning and did not suffer from any illegality. Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed, and the refusal to summon the in-laws as additional accused was upheld
Case Title: Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 6573 of 2024
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Chawan Prakash
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advs. Phool Singh Yadav, Vaibhav Yadav
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Dev Raj Singh
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :