Pranav B Prem

The Allahabad High Court recently clarified the stringent criteria required for summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). It emphasized that the degree of satisfaction needed at this stage must exceed that required for framing charges and stressed that such powers must be exercised cautiously, based on substantial evidence.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around the murder of Shyam Prakash, whose death allegedly resulted from being administered poison. On July 12, 2000, Shyam Prakash had left his home to visit his brother-in-law, Rambilas Mishra. He was carrying cash, gold ornaments, and a mobile phone. According to the complainant, Kanshi Ram (father of the deceased), a conspiracy was hatched to murder his son to usurp these valuables and a property in Lucknow.

Initially, an FIR was registered under Sections 302 (murder), 147 (rioting), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC. Eight individuals, including the applicants, were named as accused. However, after an investigation, the police filed a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC, naming only five accused and declaring the applicants—Smt. Rekha (the victim’s second wife), Anant Ram Awasthi, Smt. Ram Boli, and Barkan—as innocent.

The trial against the five accused proceeded, during which the prosecution examined three witnesses: Kanshi Ram (PW-1), Om Prakash (PW-2, the complainant’s other son), and Putti Ram (PW-3). Based on their testimonies, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC, seeking to summon the applicants as additional accused. The trial court allowed the application on September 14, 2007, citing a prima facie case against the applicants. Aggrieved, the applicants approached the Allahabad High Court, challenging the trial court’s decision.

Arguments by the Parties

For the Applicants:

1. Insufficient Evidence: The applicants argued that the prosecution had failed to present substantive evidence linking them to the crime. The trial court had mechanically relied on the witness depositions without scrutinizing the nature of the evidence.

2. No Direct Involvement: It was contended that there was no proof of their presence at the crime scene or any direct involvement in the alleged conspiracy.

3. Initial Exoneration: The investigating officer had already declared them innocent after the investigation, and no new evidence had emerged to justify their summoning under Section 319 CrPC.

For the State:

1. Consistent Allegations: The state counsel asserted that the complainant had consistently implicated the applicants from the outset. Their names were mentioned in the FIR and witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

2. Trial Testimonies: The depositions of prosecution witnesses during the trial further supported the applicants’ involvement, warranting their summoning as additional accused.

High Court’s Observations

1. Circumstantial Evidence: The court noted that the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, as the victim’s death was attributed to poisoning. There was no direct evidence linking the applicants to the crime scene or the act of administering poison.

2. No Substantiation of Conspiracy: While the complainant alleged a conspiracy among all accused, neither the FIR nor the final charge sheet included charges under Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy) or established a common intention among the accused. “Though, the complainant has alleged conspiracy amongst all the accused persons, but in the FIR or in the final charge sheet, Section 120-B IPC or any other section, much less showing the common intention/object has not been incorporated…The allegations by complainant in the beginning relating to the involvement of the accused-applicants is vague and was disbelieved by the investigating officer while declaring them innocent,” the court observed.

3. Higher Standard of Proof Required: Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that the power to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly. The evidence must strongly indicate more than a prima facie case and suggest the likelihood of conviction if left unrebutted.

4. Lack of New Evidence: The court rejected the argument that the complainant’s deposition during the trial constituted new evidence. It clarified that "evidence" under Section 319 CrPC does not include vague or previously known statements that lack substantive value.

Verdict

The High Court held that the trial court had failed to properly analyze the evidence before summoning the applicants. It observed that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient substance to warrant invoking Section 319 CrPC and set aside the trial court’s order. The application under Section 319 CrPC was dismissed, and the plea of the applicants was allowed.

Cause Title: Rekha And 3 Ors. vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.

Case No:  APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 418 of 2008

Date: January-07-2025

Bench: Justice Manoj Bajaj

[Read/Download order]