SANDEEP KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

Citation: [2023] 9 S.C.R. 1210 · Decided: 28-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
[2023] 9 S.C.R. 1210 : 2023 INSC 654
1210
SANDEEP KUMAR
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2023)
JULY 28, 2023
[C. T. RAVIKUMAR AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – The appellant-
informant (PW-9) moved an application u/s. 319 before the Trial
Court to summon three additional accused persons, R, K and P,
who were named in FIR but not in the charge-sheet and they were
identified by the appellant as assailants in his examination-in-chief
during trial – The trial Court allowed the application and summoned
the three accused persons – However, the High Court set aside the
said order in revision – The revision was allowed for the reasons
that R was found innocent during investigation and that he never
used the weapon and had actually fled from the spot – On appeal,
held: Observations of the High Court were factually incorrect as
can be seen from the examination-in-chief of PW-9 that the revisionist
had fled the scene only after the commission of the crime by an
“unlawful assembly” – For attracting the offence u/s. 149 IPC, one
simply has to be a part of an unlawful assembly, any specific
individual role or act is not material – High Court committed grave
error – The reasoning given by the High Court, cannot be accepted
at the stage of consideration of application u/s 319 Cr.PC – The
merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial
and not at the stage of s. 319 – Order of High Court set aside –
Appeal allowed – Penal Code,1860 – ss. 458, 460, 323, 302, 148,
149 and 285 – Arms Act, 1959 – s. 25.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – At the stage of
summoning an accused, there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of
the Court – In the instant case, the evidence which was there before
the Court was of an eye witness who has clearly stated before the
Court that a crime has been committed, inter alia, by the revisionist –
The Court need not cross-examine this witness –  It can stop the
trial at that stage itself if such application had been moved u/s.
319.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1211
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3
SCC 92 : [2004] SCR 913 – relied on.
Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 632; Yunis alias Kariya v. State of Madhya
Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 539 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 2003 SC 539
referred to
Para 4
[2004] SCR 913
relied on
Para 4
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.2195 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2022 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No.452 of 2021.
Ram Naresh Yadav, Suryavir, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vishal Mahajan, DAG, Dr. Monika Gusain, Shreeyash Uday Lalit,
Abhinav Aggarwal, Ishaan George, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Heard Shri Ram Naresh Yadav learned Counsel for the
appellant/complainant, Shri Vishal Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General
for the State/Respondent No.1 and Shri Shreeyash U. Lalit learned
Counsel for Respondent No.2.
3. The appellant before this Court was the informant in the case
and was a prosecution witness (PW-9), in Sessions Trial No.8/2018,
which is being held before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Haryana,
under Sections 458, 460, 323, 302, 148, 149 and 285 of IPC, 1860 read
with Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959. The incident is of 12:30 mid night
dated 07.09.2017 which occurred at Sirsa, Haryana. The First Information
Report reveals that there were in total fifteen assailants which had broke
open the complainant’s house, in the middle of the night and had come in
order to assault the inmates of the house. Out of these assailants seven
have been named who were armed with lathi and three of the named
assailants/accused namely Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar and Pawan
were armed with gun and pistols respectively. Police after investigation
SANDEEP KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
had filed chargesheet against nine persons, but not against Ramesh
Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar or Pawan whose names were placed in column 2
of the chargesheet. After the trial had commenced and the complainant
was being examined as PW-9, he disclosed the entire event as an eye
witness in his examination-in-chief, where he has unambiguously assigned
the roles to these three assailants as well, who were named in the FIR
but not made accused in

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