The Supreme Court has observed that under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court holding a trial to proceed against any person not mentioned as an accused in the FIR but has committed a crime is ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial.
The Division-Judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mittal also noted that the court holding the trial must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, as formed at the stage of a charge being framed.
Brief Facts of the Case
An FIR was filed by the complainants wherein the name of the appellant wasn’t explicitly mentioned along with the other accused. The Special Court took cognisance of the offense and summoned the appellant for trial along with the other accused. The appellant challenged the order before the High Court but the appeal was dismissed.
Contention of the Petitioner:
Counsel contended that the FIR in question was grossly delayed and no cogent explanation for such delay was published which is an indicator of the contents of the FIR being false. The counsel also turned the court’s attention to the fact that there were material contradictions in the versions of both the complainants which makes their deposition unreliable and untrustworthy. He argued that the exercise of power under section 319 CrPC by the special court was arbitrary and the High Court erred in law as well as facts by not interfering with such order in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Contention of the Respondent:
The counsel of the opposition invited the court’s attention to the decision made in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 and contended that the law relating to summoning a person for being tried along with an accused is no longer res integra. It was mentioned the Special Court duly took into consideration the legality if the situation before summoning the appellant under Section 319 CrPC. It was also mentioned that the points urged by the appellant to have the impugned order set aside are points which he can urge in defence before the Special Court and both the orders do not call for interference.
Supreme Court's Observation:
The Court observed that section 319 of the CrPC empowers the court holding the trial to proceed against any person who is not shown or mentioned as an accused in the FIR but appears from evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) to have committed a crime, ought to be tried together with the accused facing trial.
The court noted that even though the appellant was not named in the FIR the case is not such where one finds a complete absence of any reference of his involvement. The court ascertained that the Special Court formed the requisite satisfaction prior to summoning the appellant to face the trial.
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Jitendra Nath Mishra vs. State of U.P. & ANR, 2023 Latest Caselaw 523 SC
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 978 Of 2022
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 523 SC
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mittal
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Girijesh Pandey, Adv. Ms. Alpana Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari and Mr. Ramjee Pandey, AOR.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ankur Prakash, AOR.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :