SAEEDA KHATOON ARSHI versus STATE OF UP & ANR

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 10-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
SAEEDA KHATOON ARSHI
v.
STATE OF UP & ANR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1815 of  2019)
DECEMBER 10, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.319 – Power to
proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence
– Prosecution case was that appellant received phone call on
fateful night at 3 a.m. from second respondent-husband of her
daughter that the victim-deceased has hanged herself – Appellant
reached the house of her daughter and found her dead body lying
on floor – Appellant fell unconscious and when she regained
consciousness, she came to know that the second respondent and
his relatives bathed and buried the body of deceased – She then
saw the photos of the dead body, which showed injury marks on
the neck, hands and legs – On her application, the dead body was
exhumed and a post-mortem was conducted but the body was in
an advanced stage of decomposition and the cause of death could
not be ascertained as nine days had elapsed since the date of death
and the burial of the deceased – A chargesheet was filed against
a person who was friend of second respondent alleged to have
abetted the suicidal death of the appellant’s daughter and trial
commenced – On the basis of substantive evidence of the appellant
during the course of trial against the second respondent, an
application was moved under s.319 to summon the second
respondent to face trial as he appeared to be complicit in the crime
leading to murder of appellant’s daughter – Trial court allowed
s.319 application – Second respondent challenged the same before
High Court by filing s.482 application – High Court allowed s.482
application and set aside the summoning order – Hence the instant
appeal – Held: The order of trial court  for summoning the second
respondent was on the basis of the evidence which emerged during
the course of trial – The order summoning the second respondent
was on a careful evaluation of the evidentiary material and based
on the principles laid down in the decision of the Constitution
   [2019] 14 S.C.R. 829
829
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
Bench in Hardeep Singh – Trial court furnished reasons for relying
on the provisions of s.114 of the Evidence Act having due regard
to the fact that the incident had taken place within the confines of
the matrimonial home where only the second respondent and the
deceased were residing on the night when the incident took place
– The order passed by trial court did not suffer from any infirmity
– On the contrary, it was the High Court which interfered with the
findings of trial court on the specious ground that the trial was
proceeding against friend of second respondent for an offence
under s.319 and that trial court had merely engaged in an exercise
of exploring the possibility as to the cause of death – s.319
empowers the court to proceed against a person appearing to be
guilty of an offence where, in the course of any enquiry into or
trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person,
not being the accused, has committed any offence for which such
person could be tried together with the accused – The exercise of
the discretion by trial court to summon the second respondent
fulfilled the requirements of s.319 – The fact that a protest petition
had not been filed by the appellant when the report was submitted
under s.173 did not render the court powerless to exercise its
powers under s.319 on the basis of the evidence which had
emerged during the course of the trial – The order passed by the
High Court is unsustainable – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  During the course of her cross-examination
on 6 December 2018, the appellant was questioned on her
deposition in the course of the Examination-in-Chief about the
harassment which her daughter had suffered at the hands of the
second respondent, his father, mother and brothers. PW- 1
maintained her account in the course of her cross-examination,
stating that on the night before the incident when her daughter
had visited her house together with the second respondent, she
had informed PW-1 about the ill-treatment meted out to her. PW-
1 further stated in her cross-examination that she received
intimation of the death of her daughter from the second
respondent at 3:00 am as she was preparing for sehari during
the month of Ramzan. On reaching the scene of the incident, it
was found that only the second re

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