Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 218

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS – Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4626 of 2017) WITH
KHUSBU GUPTA – Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 396 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4560 of 2017)
Decided On : 27-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi,Adv, Mr. Gaurav Kumar,Adv. Mr. Priyanshu Maheshwari,Adv. Ms. Shilpi Gupta,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy, AOR, Mr. A. Ramesh,Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta,Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy, AOR,
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR Ms. Pooja Singh,Adv. Ms. Priyanka Singh,Adv. Mr. Kamlesh Anand,Adv. Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR Mr. Rohit Singh,Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Before court exercises its jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at satisfaction that evidence adduced by prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of persons sought to be added as accused in case.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Under Section 319 Cr.P.C., a person can be added as an accused invoking the provisions not only for same offence for which accused is tried but for any offence but that offence shall be such that in respect of which all accused could be tried together – Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. empowers Court to proceed against any person not shown as an accused if it appears from evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together along with accused – Before court exercises its jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at satisfaction that evidence adduced by prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of persons sought to be added as accused in case – Neither complaint nor evidence of witnesses indicates as to role played by appellants in commission of offence and which accused has committed what offence – Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that prosecution has shown prima facie material for summoning accused for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC – Trial court and High Court has not examined the matter in light of the well-settled principles and impugned order is liable to be set aside. (Paras 9, 12 and 13)
       Facts of Case:
       Murder case. Present appeals arise out of order dated 25.04.2017 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1354 of 2017 in and by which High Court has affirmed order of trial court summoning appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
       Findings of Court:
       No prima facie case is made out for summoning appellants and to proceed against appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Neither complaint nor evidence of witnesses indicates as to role played by appellants in commission of offence and which accused has committed what offence. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that prosecution has shown prima facie material for summoning accused for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the order dated 25.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1354 of 2017 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the order of the trial court summoning the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. Marriage of deceased Shilpa, daughter of Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1) was solemnized with Dimpal @ Akash Deep on 26.01.2006. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. According to the complainant -Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1), his daughter Shilpa was complaining about the demand of dowry by her husband Dimpal @ Akash Deep and the appellants-her in-laws. Complainant-PW-1 alleged that on 19.08.2012, his daughter Shilpa was set ablaze and she told him in full consciousness that Chanchal @ Babita, Sachin, Sunil Kumar Gupta (Elder uncle of Dimpal), Pushpa (wife of Sunil Kumar Gupta), Vicky (Son of Sunil Kumar Gupta), Neeru, Shrikant Gupta (Brother of Sunil Kumar Gupta), Bhagwan and Khusbu Gupta have poured kerosene on her and burnt her. Dying declaration of Shilpa was recorded by the Tehsildar on 19.08.2012 at 09.40 PM in which she stated that Chanchal @ Babita poured kerosene and set her on fire. Deceased Shilpa succumbed to injuries on the same day at night i.e. 19.08.2012. On the complaint lodged by Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1), FIR was registered against nine accused including the appellants under Sections 304-B, 498A, 302 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against Chanchal @ Babita (wife of Sachin Kumar) for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. So far as other accused are concerned, the charge sheet stated that no offence was made out under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. In the trial, Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1), Mohit Agarwal (PW-2), and Munish Gupta (PW-3) were examined on 30.10.2014, 06.11.2015 and 08.11.2015 respectively. About one year thereafter during the course of trial on 04.10.2016, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution seeking to summon the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC stating that their names were mentioned in the FIR and also in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3. The trial court held that prima facie evidence is available against the appellants for trying them for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and allowed the application and ordered issuance of summons to the appellants for trial under Section 302 IPC. In the revision filed by the appellants, the High Court by the impugned order dismissed the revision petition observing that there are specific allegations against the revisionists and therefore, there is no illegality or impropriety in the order of the trial court. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before us.

5. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that though the names of the appellants were mentioned in the FIR, subsequently they have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer when the charge sheet was filed and this aspect was not considered by the High Court. Placing reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92, it was submitted that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where circumstances of the case so warrant, the accused could be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that in the present case, there are no strong and cogent evidence for the trial court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon the appellants for trial under Section 302 IPC. It was contended that when the dying declaration of deceased Shilpa contains only the name of Chanchal @ Babita, the trial court and the High Court ought not to have orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 218

IMPORTANT POINTBefore court exercises its jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at satisfaction that evidence adduced by prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of persons sought to be added as accused in case.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Before court exercises its jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at satisfaction that evidence adduced by prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of persons sought to be added as accused in case.