LexSUNIL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
875
SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 27, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.319 – Summoning of
appellants for offence under s.302 IPC – Allegation of dowry death
of victim-deceased – Prosecution case was that the dying
declaration of the victim-deceased was that she was set on fire on
account of demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws – During
course of trial, application under s.319 was filed by prosecution
seeking to summon the appellants/accused for offence punishable
under s.302 stating that their names were mentioned in the FIR and
also in the statement of PW-1 and PW-3 – Trial Court held that
prima facie evidence was available against the appellants and
allowed the application – High Court dismissed the revision
petition against the order of Trial Court – On appeal, held: No
prima facie case was made out for summoning the appellants and
to proceed against them for the offence punishable under s.302
IPC – In the dying declaration, deceased had only mentioned the
name of her sister-in-law and she had not mentioned the names of
others – Even the charge sheet for the offence punishable under
s.302 IPC was filed only against her sister-in-law – For summoning
an accused under s.319, it requires much stronger evidence than
mere probability of his complicity which is lacking in the instant
case – In his complaint lodged before the police on the next day of
incident, PW-1, the father of deceased neither stated the names of
the appellants nor attributed any overt act – Likewise, in their
evidence before the court, PWs 1 and 3 only stated that the
deceased told them that her sister-in-law and all others have set
fire on her – Neither the complaint nor the evidence of witnesses
indicated as to the role played by the appellants in the commission
of the offence and which accused committed what offence – The
averments in the complaint and the evidence regarding the demand
of dowry was vague and no specific demand was attributed to any
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 875
875
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
of the appellants – In such circumstances, there was no
justification for summoning the appellants for offence under s.498A
IPC, ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under s.302 IPC –
The impugned order is liable to be set aside – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss. 498A and 302 – Dowry Prohibition Act – ss.3 and 4.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.319 – Power of court
under s.319, scope – Held: s.319(1) empowers the Court to
proceed against any person not shown as an accused if it appears
from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for
which such person could be tried together along with the accused
– Power under s.319 is a discretionary and an extraordinary power
and is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant and that only where strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led
before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a
casual and cavalier manner.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is fairly well settled that before the court
exercises its jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must
arrive at satisfaction that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of the persons
sought to be added as the accused in the case. [Para 9]
[881-B-C]
1.2 It was held in Hardeep Singh that power under Section
319 Cr.P.C is a discretionary and an extraordinary power and is
to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant and that only where strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence
led before the court that such power should be exercised and not
in a casual and cavalier manner. When this principle is applied to
the case in hand, no prima facie case was made out for summoning
the appellants and for proceeding against the appellants for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In the dying
declaration, deceased had only mentioned the name of her sister-
in-law; but she did not mention the names of others. In his
complaint lodged before the police on the next day, PW-1 had
stated that his daughter told him that her sister-in-law and all
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
877
other people set her on fire after pouring kerExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.