LexBRIJENDRA SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 3 S.C.R. 374 BRIJENDRA SINGH & ORS .. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 763 of2017) APRIL 27, 2017 [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Power of court (o summon accused not arraigned as accused- Exercise of - When C - Held: Prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger and cogent evidence than mere probability of his complicity - Degree of satisfaction is to be more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom chargesheet was filed - Power is not to be exercised in a casual or -. a cavalier manner - On facts, trial court acted in a casual and D cavalier manner in passing the summoning order against the appellants - Documentary and other evidence collected during the investigation, showed that appellants plea of alibi was correct - Evidence recorded during trial was nothing more than the statements which was already there uls. 161 Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of E investigation of the case - Trial court was duty bound to see while · forming prima facie opinion and to see as to whether 'much stronger evidence than mere possibility of the appellants' complicity came on record - There was no satisfaction of this nature - High Court too ignored the said material- Thus, the order of summoning the . appellants u/s. 319 set aside. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The powers of the court to proceed und-er Section 319 Cr.P.C. even against those persons who are not ~rraigned as accused, cannot be disputed. This provision is meant to achieve the objective that real culprit should not get away - ' G _unpunished. Section 3.19 Cr.P.C., which is an enabling provision empowering the Court to take· appropriate steps for proceeding against any perso.n, not being an accused, can be exercised at any time after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement.of the judgment, except during (he stage of. H 374. • BRJJENDRA SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 375 Section 207/208 Cr.P.C., the committal etc., which is only a pre- A trial stage intended to put the process into motion. [Paras 9,. 10)(381-H; 383-B-C] 1.2 The principles enunciated in Hardeep Singh 's case are recapitulated. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court, once it finds that there is some B 'evidence' against such a person on the basis of which evidence it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty of offence. The 'evidence' means the material that is brought before the court during trial. Insofar as the material/evidence collected by the IO at the stage of inquiry is concerned, it can be utilised for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the court C to invoke the power under Section 319. No doubt, such eVidence that has surfaced in examination-in-chief, without cross- examination of witnesses, can also be taken into consideration. However, since it is a discretionary power given to the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and is also an extram;dinary one, same D has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrants. The degree 'Of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom chargesheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power E · should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. [Para 13)(385-B-G] · 1.3 When the said principles with their application are translated to the facts of this case, an impression is gathered that the trial court acted in a casual and cavalier manner in passing F the summoning order against the appeUaitts: The police investigation revealed that the statements of these persons regarding the presence of the' appellants at the place of occurrence·· G : was doubtful and did not inspire confidence, in view· of the documentary and other evidence collected during the investigation, which depicted another story and clinchingly showed that appellants plea ·of alibi was correct. This record was - . before the trial court. Notwithstanding the same, the trial court · · · If 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A wen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.