SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Jamin & Anr - Appellants
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) NO. 6320 of 2024)
Decided on : 06-03-2025
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J. :
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: -
| INDEX | |
| A. | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| B. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS |
| C. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT |
| D. | ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION |
| E. | ANALYSIS |
| (i) Legislative history, ingredients and scope of Section 319 of the CrPC | |
| (ii) Stage at which power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised. | |
| (iii) Meaning of the expression “could be tried together with the accused” | |
| (iv) Peculiar facts of the present case not fully covered by the guidelines issued by this Court in its decisions in Sukhpal Singh Khaira and Hardeep Singh | |
| (v) Whether the High Court was right in exercising its revision jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent no. 2 under section 319 of the CrPC? | |
| (vi) The order passed by the High Court in exercise of its revision jurisdiction would relate back to and replace the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application under Section 319 of the CrPC | |
| (vii) Right of the proposed accused to be heard at the stage of summoning under Section 319 of CrPC | |
| F. | CONCLUSION |
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 01.04.2024 in Criminal Application No. 2399 of 2024 filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the “CrPC”) by which the High Court rejected the application and thereby affirmed the order passed by the Sessions Court summoning the appellants herein as accused under Section 319 of the CrPC in the Session Trial No. 582 of 2009.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
3. On 14.04.2009, the respondent no. 2 herein lodged a First Information Report (“FIR”) No. 99/2009 in the Police Station Bilgram, Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) respectively against five persons namely Irshad, Irfan, Abdul, Jamin and Akil in connection with the murder of his brother. The FIR alleged that the appellants herein namely, Jamin and Akil exhorted the other co-accused to kill the deceased and as a result of such instigation, the said co-accused fired at the deceased using their pistols resulting into his death.
4. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed chargesheet no. 07/2009 dated 14.07.2009 against two accused persons, namely Irshad and Irfan for the alleged offence. The police by way of Parcha No. CD 16 dated 14.07.2009 informed the court concerned that the investigation qua the remaining accused persons, namely Abdul, Jamin and Akil was ongoing. The chargesheet contained a list of 18 witnesses which the State proposed to examine in support of the charges.
5. On 27.10.2009, the Trial Court framed charge for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC respectively against the accused persons who were named in the chargesheet who in turn pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. While the trial against the chargesheeted accused persons namely Irshad and Irfan was in progress, the respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC praying to summon the other three persons named in the FIR to face the trial along with the chargesheeted accused persons.
7. On 29.01.2010, the Trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that a person could be summoned by the trial court in exercise of its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC provided that there is cogent and reliable evidence indicating towards the complicity of such person in the commission of an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused persons already put to trial. The Trial Court noted that PW-1 and PW-2 respectively had yet not been cross-examined and i
Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh & Anr. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 738 [Para 17]
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 [Para 17]
Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517 [Para 18]
Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh v. Satish Atmaraman Talekar & Ors. reported in (2020) 6 SCC 625 [Para 18]
Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in (2011) 13 SCC 316 [Para 22]
Devendra Kumar Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2487 [Para 22]
Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi reported in (1983) 1 SCC 1 [Para 35]
Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (1993) 2 SCC 16 [Para 36]
Suman v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) 1 SCC 250 [Para 40]
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 [Para 76]
Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat reported in (1969) 2 SCC 74 [Para 88]
Chopra v. State of Bombay reported in 1955 SCC OnLine SC 57 [Para 89]
Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 623) [Para 91]
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders
Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 5 SCC 453 [Para 97]
Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2023) 9 SCC 108 [Para 109]
The High Court's revisional order allowing summoning of additional accused under Section 319 relates back to the original rejection date, permitting a fresh trial despite the main trial's conclusion.
Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon the inquiry with regard to facts of the case, particularly when the courts below had applied its mind and taken a view, which does ....
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly based on strong and cogent evidence, and the test for summoning a person is one which is more than prima facie c....
(1) Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Power of court to summon an accused based on evidence as contemplated under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. will have to be invoked and exercised before pro....
(1) Powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage before final conclusion of trial.(2) On the basis of examination-in-chief of a witness if a case is made out, a person can be summon....
(1) Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Power exercised under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. is quite distinct from power exercised by Trial Court/Sessions Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. – Po....
The court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with strong evidence and cannot be invoked after the trial of co-accused has concluded.
The court affirmed that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised before the conclusion of trial and sentencing, allowing for the summoning of additional accused based on evidence.
For invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.