LexSUGREEV KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R. SUGREEV KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2019) MARCH 15, 2019 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 319 – Application under – In a criminal proceeding trying three accused for offences u/ss. 302, 307, 341 r/w s.34 IPC and u/ ss. 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959 – For summoning eight persons to face trial, on the basis of testimony of a witness whereby he had deposed that eleven persons were involved in the crime – Trial court summoned one person and dismissed the application qua seven persons – High Court affirmed the order of trial court – On appeal, held: Section 319 empowers summoning of any person on the basis of any relevant evidence – However, the power being discretionary, is to be exercised sparingly – The test to be applied is the one which is more than a prima facie case as examined at the time of framing charge, but not of satisfaction to the extent that the evidence if goes uncontroverted, would lead to the conviction of the accused – In the present case, consideration of the application had been as if the existence of a case beyond reasonable doubt was being examined against the proposed accused – This was clearly an erroneous approach – Impugned order is set aside and application is restored to be re-examined by the trial court. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The provisions contained in Section 319 CrPC are to achieve the objective that the real culprit should not get away unpunished. By virtue of these provisions, the Court is empowered to proceed against any person not shown as an accused, if it appears from evidence that such person has committed any offence for which, he could be tried together with the other accused persons. [Para 10][214-F, G] [2019] 4 S.C.R. 208 208 A B C D E F G H 209 2. The provisions contained in Section 319 CrPC sanction the summoning of any person on the basis of any relevant evidence as available on record. However, it being a discretionary power and an extraordinary one, is to be exercised sparingly and only when cogent evidence is available. The prime facie opinion which is to be formed for exercise of this power requires stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity of a person. The test to be applied is the one which is more than a prime facie case as examined at the time of framing charge but not of satisfaction to the extent that the evidence, if goes uncontroverted, would lead to the conviction of the accused. [Para 12][216-F, G] 3. In the present case, the consideration of the application under Section 319 CrPC had been as if the existence of a case beyond reasonable doubt was being examined against the proposed accused persons. The Trial Court and the High Court have proceeded as if an infallible case was required to be shown by the prosecution in order to proceed against the proposed accused persons. That had clearly been an erroneous approach towards the prayer for proceeding against a person with reference to the evidence available on record. [Para 13][216-H, 217-A, B] 4. The appellant (PW-1) has made the statement assigning specific roles to the proposed accused persons. At the stage of consideration of the application under Section 319 CrPC, the trial court was to look at something more than a prima facie case but could not have gone to the extent of enquiring as to whether the matter would ultimately result in conviction of the proposed accused persons. [Para 14][217-B-C] 5. In the totality of the circumstances of the present case, the prayer of the prosecution for proceeding against other accused persons, having not been examined in the proper prospective and with due regard to the applicable principles, deserves to be restored for reconsideration of the trial court. [Para 16] [217-D, E] Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 : [2014] 2 SCR 1 – followed. Brijendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706 : [ 2017] 3 SCR 374 – referred to. SUGREEV KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. A B C D E F G H 210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R. Case Law Reference [2014] 2 SCR 1 followed Para 6 [2017] 3 SCR 374 referred to Para 6 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2018 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 2626 of 2014 Raj Bahadur Srot, Ashok Kumar Gupta II, Advs. for the Appellant. R. Basant, Sr. A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.