YASHODHAN SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1196 · Decided: 18-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
YASHODHAN SINGH & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2186 of 2023)
JULY 18, 2023
[B. V. NAGARATHNA AND UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Principle of
hearing a person who is summoned u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. – Applicability
of – Respondent no.2-complainant got an FIR registered u/ss. 147,
148, 149, 302, 452, 307, 504 of IPC – A charge-sheet was filed
against the accused persons but the names of appellants were not
mentioned in it as their role was under investigation – Respondent
no.2 filed application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. to summon appellants – Trial
Court summoned appellants to join trial – High Court affirmed the
order passed by the trial Court – Before the Supreme Court,
appellant contended that either the summoning order may be set
aside in light of paragraph 9 of the Jogendra Yadav case as no
opportunity of hearing that was provided to the appellants, at the
time of order of summoning or the Jogendra Yadav case may be
referred to a larger Bench if not followed in the instant case – Held:
Merely because in certain proceedings the persons summoned had
been provided an opportunity of being heard cannot be the same
thing as stating that it is a mandatory requirement or a precondition
that at the time of summoning a person u/s. 319 of the Cr.P.C., he
should be given an opportunity of being heard – Paragraph 9 cannot
be considered to be ratio of the Jogendra Yadav judgment – The
judgment in Jogendra Yadav does not calls for any re-consideration
and observation in paragraph 9 is relatable only to the facts of the
said case – Thus, the principle of hearing a person who is summoned
cannot be read into s. 319 Cr.P.C, such a procedure is not at all
contemplated therein.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Object and
purpose – discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep
Singh, it is noted that an inquiry is contemplated as against a
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1196 : 2023 INSC 652
1196
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1197
person who has been discharged prior to the commencement of
the trial in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C. as extracted above but
on an inquiry, if it appears that there is evidence against such a
discharged person, then power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised against such a discharged person. This clearly would
mean that when a person who is not discharged but is to be
summoned as per Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of satisfaction
derived by the court on the evidence on record, no inquiry or
hearing is contemplated. This would clearly indicate that principle
of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing a person
summoned under 319 Cr.P.C. are not at all contemplated. Such a
right of inquiry would accrue only to a person who is already
discharged in the very same proceeding prior to the
commencement of the trial. This is different from holding that a
person who has been summoned as per Section 319 Cr.P.C. has
a right of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural
justice before being added as an accused to be tried along with
other accused. [Para 23][1212-D-G]
2. Further, when a person is summoned as an accused under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. which is based on the satisfaction recorded
by the Trial Court on the evidence that has emerged during the
course of trial so as to try the person summoned as an accused
along with the other accused, the summoned accused cannot seek
discharge. It is necessary to state that discharge as contemplated
under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is at a stage prior to the commencement
of the trial and immediately after framing of charge but when
power is exercised the under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon a
person to be added as an accused in the trial to be tried along
with other accused, such a person cannot seek discharge as the
court would have exercised the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
based on a satisfaction derived from the evidence that has
emerged during the evidence recorded in the course of trial and
such satisfaction is of a higher degree than the satisfaction which
is derived by the court at the time of framing of charge.
[Para 24][1212-G-H; 1213-A-B]
3. Merely because in certain proceedings the persons
summoned had been provided an opportunity of being heard
cannot be the same thing as stating that it is a mandatory
YASHODHAN SINGH & ORS. v. THE STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2

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