LAL SURAJ @ SURAJ SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1059 · Decided: 18-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1059 
~ 
LAL SURAJ @ SURAJ SINGH & ANR. 
A 
\I. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND 
, 
"-
(Criminal Appeal No. 2062 of 2008) 
. DECEMBER 18, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 319 -
... I 
Summoning of other persons appearing to be guilty of offence 
under - Power of - Held: Is wide but is to be exercised very c 
sparingly - Before summoning an accused, trial court must 
' 
form opinion on basis of evidences brought before it that case 
• 
has been made out that such person could be tried together 
with the other accused - Person not charge sheeted, may 
come within the purview of description of person as contained o, 
-
in s.319- On facts, appellants were not charge sheeted and 
also not named in FIR - Deposition of prosecution witnesses 
relied upon by courts below while allowing the application to 
'"'\ 
summon appellants not reliable - No substantial evidence on 
record to make out a case against appellants - Thus, order 
of courts below set aside. 
E 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether the courts below relying on evidence 
of prosecution witnesses were justified in allowing the 
application for summoning the appellants in exercise of 
his power uls. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
F 
1973. 
;. 
-~ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a special provision. 
It seeks to meet an extraordinary situation. It although 
confers a power of wide amplitude but is required to be 
G 
' 
exercised very sparingly. Before an order summoning an 
accused is passed, the trial court must form an opinion 
'., ~ 
on the basis of the evidences brought before it that a 
case has been made out that such person could be tried 
1059 
H 
-
" 
• 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
..... 
A together with the other accused. Even if a person had not 
been charge sheeted, he may come within the purview 
of the description of such a person as contained in s. 319 
.. 
of the Code. [Paras 11 and 12] [1065-8-D] 
' 
1.2. The principle of strong suspicion may be a 
B criterion at the stage of framing of charge as all the 
materials brought during investigation were required to 
be taken into consideration, but, for the purpose of 
summoning a person, who did not figure as accused, a 
different legal principle is required to be applied. A court 
~A 1 
c framing a charge would have before it all the materials on 
record which were required to be proved by the 
prosecution .. In a case where, however, the court 
, 
exercises its jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code, 
" 
the power has to be exercised on the basis of the fresh 
evidence brought before the court. There lies a fine but 
D clear distinction. [Par:~ 15] [1066-G-H; 1067-A-B] 
2.1. The prosecution concededly did not file any 
chargesheet against the appellants. Even in the First 
Information Report only the appellant No. 1 was. named. 
r t-
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. There 
E cannot be any doubt or dispute that although a person 
named in the First Information Report-or another who 
was found to be involved in the commission of the 
offence may be summoned at a subsequent stage by the 
., 
trial judge, legality of an order summoning such an 
., 
F accused, however, would depend on the nature of 
evidence brought on __ record by the prosecution 
witnesses and other relevant factors. [Paras 8 and 9] , 
"" 
[1064-A-C] 
~-
2.2. The Sessions Judge as also the High Court relied 
G upon the deposi_tlon of PW-6 and PW-7. PW-6 is not an 
eye-witness to the occurrence. PW-7 is only hearsay 
witness. No evid~nce worth the name had been brought 
on record to arrive at a satisfaction that there was a 
reasonable prospect of conviction of the appellants. The 
f--
approach of the Sessions Judge was wholly incorrect. 
H [Paras 13 and 14] [1066-B, F, G] 
-'" 
• 
' 
LAL SURAJ@ SURAJ SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF 
1061 
JHARKHAND 
2.3. Applying the legal principles to the fact of the 
A 
case, Sessions Judge as also the High Court committed , 
a serious error in passing the impugned judgment. On the · 
basis of the aforementioned evidence, there was no 
possibility of recording a judgment of conviction against • 
the appellants at all. Thus, the impugned order are set 
B 
aside. [Para 21] [1069-E-F] 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi 
(1983) 1 SCC 1; Yuvaraj Ambar Mohite v. State of, 
Maharashtra (2006) 1 O SCALE 369; Guriya alias Tabass

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.