MANJEET SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 855 · Decided: 24-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
855
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 855
855
MANJEET SINGH
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.875 of 2021)
AUGUST 24, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Summoning of
additional accused – An FIR was registered on the basis of the
statement of the original complainant regarding death of his son
and injuries suffered by his nephew-appellant – As per his statement
his son and his nephew were attacked by one ‘S’ and four accused
persons/private respondents armed with weapons while they were
on their way back home after purchasing the pesticides meant for
paddy in their car – There was indiscriminate firing from ‘S’ which
led to death of his son and his nephew was injured – A cross-case
was also registered against the complainant side – The matter was
investigated and after investigation, a final report was filed only
against ‘S’ – That during the trial, appellant-nephnew was examined
as PW1 – In the deposition, he reiterated the allegations made in
the FIR including the allegations made against the four private
respondents and reiterated what was stated in the FIR – He came to
be cross-examined partly and during the cross-examination, an
application u/s. 319 CrPC was given on behalf of the complainant
for summoning of four private respondents as additional accused –
The trial Court dismissed the application u/s. 319 CrPC – The High
Court confirmed the order passed by the trial Court – On appeal,
held: It is required to be noted that in the FIR all the private
respondents herein who are sought to be arraigned as additional
accused were specifically named with specific role attributed to them
– It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that all the aforesaid persons
with common intention parked the car in a manner which blocks
the entire road and they were armed with the weapons – The evidence
of an injured eye witness has greater evidential value and unless
compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded
lightly – While exercising the powers u/s. 319 CrPC the Court has
not to wait till the cross-examination and on the basis of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
examination-in-chief of a witness if a case is made out, a person
can be summoned to face the trial u/s. 319 CrPC – The trial Court
as well as the High Court have materially erred in dismissing the
application u/s.319 CrPC and refusing to summon the private
respondents herein to face the trial in exercising the powers u/s.
319 CrPC.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – The High Court
while dismissing the application filed u/s.319 CrPC went into the
merits of the case – Held: At the stage of exercising the powers u/s.
319 CrPC, the Court is not required to appreciate and/or enter on
the merits of the allegations of the case.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Exercise of
power under – Held: Powers u/s. 319 CrPC can be exercised at
any stage from commencing of the trial and recording of evidence/
deposition and before the conclusion of the trial at any stage.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The ratio of the various Supreme Court decisions
on the scope and ambit of the powers of the Court under Section
319 CrPC can be summarized as under:
(i) That while exercising the powers under Section 319
CrPC and to summon the persons not charge-sheeted, the entire
effort is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away
unpunished;
(ii) for the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the
criminal administration of justice works properly;
(iii) the law has been properly codified and modified by the
legislature under the CrPC indicating as to how the courts should
proceed to ultimately find out the truth so that the innocent does
not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to
book under the law;
(iv) to discharge duty of the court to find out the real truth
and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished;
(v) where the investigating agency for any reason does not
array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not
powerless in calling the said accused to face trial;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
857
(vi) Section 319 CrPC allows the court to proceed against
any person who is not an accused in a case before it;
(vii) the court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is
cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be
inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts
in our

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