The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.
Brief Facts:
The present appeals arise out of the decision of the Allahabad High Court vide which the High Court refused to quash the summoning order.
The issue before the Apex Court was whether there was sufficient material against the Appellant prompting the Trial Court to pass a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Brief Background:
The Informant alleged that her son was murdered by the present appellants, the father of the appellants, along with two others, due to certain old enmity existing between the two families.
The IO filed a chargesheet in which the Appellants were not named as Accused. The 4 Accused who were chargesheeted passed away.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that even if the trial has abated against existing accused, there is no bar in summoning the appellants and starting the trial afresh.
Observations of the Court:
It was opined that the degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was noted that there were no witnesses to depose against the Appellant, further there was no documentary evidence.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, the Court allowed the present appeals and set aside the order of the High Court.
Case Title: Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 291 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Mr. Abhisek Mohanty
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Yasharth Kant, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Ankit Goel, Mr. Dhawal Uniyal, Mr. Nikhil Sharma
Read More @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
