SARTAJ SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2021] 3 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 15-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
87
   [2021] 3 S.C.R. 87
87
SARTAJ SINGH
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 298-299 of 2021)
MARCH 15, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Summoning of
additional accused – Appellant-original informant was attacked
by private respondents and other accused persons – On basis of
the statement of the appellant, FIR was lodged for offences u/ss.148,
149, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 506 IPC – Thereafter, charge-sheet
was filed by the Investigating Officer against the other accused,
but not against the private respondents – During the trial the
appellant was examined as P.W-1, he named the private respondents
in his evidence specifically and stood the test of cross-examination
– Appellant filed an application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of
the additional accused-private respondents – The trial Court allowed
the application u/s.319 Cr.P.C. – In the revision petitions, the High
Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial Court
summoning the additional accused-private respondents – On appeal,
held: The accused can be summoned on the basis of even
examination-in-chief of the witness and the Court need not wait till
his cross-examination – If on basis of the examination-in-chief of
the witness the Court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case
against the proposed accused, the Court may in exercise of powers
u/s.319 Cr.P.C. array such a person as accused and summon him to
face the trial – In the instant case, the appellant right from the
beginning disclosed the names of private respondents and
specifically named them in FIR – The reasons assigned by the High
Court were unsustainable in law and on facts – What is required to
be considered at this stage was whether there is any prima facie
case and not whether on the basis of such material the proposed
accused is likely to be convicted or not and/or whatever is stated
by the injured eye witness in his examination-in-chief is exaggeration
or not – Therefore, the trial Court was justified in directing to issue
summons against the private respondents to face trial.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In Hardeep Singh, this Court had an occasion to
consider in detail  the  scope  and  ambit  of  the  powers  of  the
Magistrate under  Section  319 CrPC,  the  object  and  purpose
of Section 319 CrPC etc. It is observed in the said decision that
the entire effort is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence
to get away unpunished. It is observed that this is also a part of
fair trial and in order to achieve this very end that the legislature
thought of incorporating the provisions of Section 319 CrPC.  It
is further observed that for the empowerment of the courts to
ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly,
the law has been appropriately 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. It is also observed that it is the duty of the
court to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does
not go unpunished. [Para 6.1.1][97-D-F]
2. Considering  the  law  laid  down  by  this  Court  in
Hardeep Singh, it emerges that (i) the Court can exercise the
power  under  Section  319  CrPC  even  on  the  basis  of  the
statement  made  in  the  examination-in-chief  of  the  witness
concerned and the Court need not wait till the cross-examination
of such a witness and the Court need not wait for the evidence
against the  accused  proposed  to  be  summoned  to  be  tested
by  crossexamination; and (ii) a person not named in the FIR or a
person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted
or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under
Section 319 CrPC, provided from the evidence (may be on the
basis of the evidence  collected  in  the  form  of  statement  made
in  the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned), it appears
that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing
trial. [Para 6.2][110-C-E]
3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in its various
decisions to the case of the accused on hand, this Court is of the
opinion that learned Trial Court was justified in summoning the
private respondents herein to face the trial as accused on the

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