The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that under Section 319 Cr.P.C., additional accused can be summoned only if there is more than a prima facie case as is required at the time of framing of charge, but which is less than the satisfaction required at the time of conclusion of the trial convicting the accused.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was registered in which it was alleged that Opposite party no. 2 was married to Pawan Kumar Singh (one of the accused). After some time of marriage, all the accused persons started demanding a motorcycle and money. The said demand was fulfilled by the father of opposite party no.2, however, the accused persons again started demanding money to purchase an apartment in Khelgaon.
Furthermore, it was alleged that the informant's father gave the accused persons Rs. 50,000 after they demanded money from the informant's mother, father, and elder sister of the opposing party no. 2. The accused attacked opposing party no. 2 when her family left for the bazaar. In the meantime, mother, father, and older sister of opposite party no. 2 returned home and discovered that opposite party no.2 was tied up by her hands and legs.
Somehow, they were able to rescue her. Other accused persons also started assaulting the mother, father, and sister of the informant and after reaching Jahanabad, the FIR was lodged. The present petition has been filed in order to quash the order passed by the learned court below to call the petitioners to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the Petitioners were called upon by the court only because P.Ws.1, 2, and 3 have taken the name of these Petitioners. It was furthermore submitted that if more than a prima facie case is made out from the evidence of any of the witnesses, then only the Court is required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab.
Contentions of the state
The state submitted that the trial court rightly called upon the petitioners to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that in the absence of strong and cogent evidence, an additional accused cannot be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. casually or carelessly. According to Section 319 Cr.P.C., more accused persons may only be called if there is more than a prima facie case that is necessary at the time the charge is filed, but not as strong as what is needed to convict the accused at the end of the trial.
It was noted that merely disclosing the name of the Petitioners can’t be considered strong and convincing evidence to support their trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., especially in a case that is arising out of a matrimonial dispute under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the order passed by the learned court below.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed and disposed of the Petition.
Case title: Shrawan Kumar Singh @ Shrawan Kumar Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 2335 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
