The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed that the power of a court under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be excercised sparingly. (Naveen vs State of Haryana)
The bench further observed, “The crucial test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.”
Facts of the case
In the present case, the trial Judge rejected the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 CrPC for summoning a person to face trial in a rape case. In her application, it was submitted by the complainant that she had named the said person as accused in her initial version but the police did not challan them in collusion with them. Latterly, the High Court allowed his application and has set aside this order.
The instant appeal has been filed assailing correctness of order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, setting aside order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Bhiwani, Haryana, whereby the learned trial Judge rejected the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant (accused) to face trial with reference to FIR registered under Sections 307, 364, 366, 376 read with Section 34 IPC .
Courts observation & Judgment
The bench referred to the judgement in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. The bench taking note of the same observed, “The Constitution Bench has given a caution that power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.”
The bench taking note of the facts of the case observed, “While applying the aforestated principle, we may examine the facts of the instant case. It will manifest that the present incident is based on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution case, the alleged occurrence has taken place in the hotel and not in the hospital. In hospital, the appellant had taken the deceased/prosecutrix and if the appellant as proposed, visited the hospital, that in no manner could make him an accomplice with the accused Arjun and apart from the evidence of the complainant PW.10, the statement of other prosecution witnesses, PW.6 Mahipal, the Hotel Manager and PW.8 Deepchand, Waiter, no one has accompanied the deceased other than accused Arjun. The CCTV footage of the hotel where the alleged occurrence has taken place which came on record during the course of trial indicates that no other person had visited the hotel except Arjun who was made accused and faced trial.”
Accordingly, the court while referring to the evidence on record, noted that the same, if remains unrebutted will not be sufficient to lead the conviction so far as the present appellant is concerned. Therefore, the order of High Court was set aside and allowed the application.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
