Rama Singh vs State of U. P. - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1610

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1610

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Rama Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1333 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP(CRL.) No. 4970 of 2023]
Decided on : 18-03-2025

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Summoning of additional accused to face trial - The court must consider lawfully collected evidence after an application under Section 319 and must apply the rigorous conditions mandated for summoning additional accused based on credible evidence - The absence of credible evidence led the trial court to erroneous summoning of the accused. (Paras 21-22)

(B) Criminal Law - Principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab - The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised routinely and requires more than a prima facie case. (Paras 17-18)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was summoned to face trial for murder under alleged involvement in a shooting incident, which resulted in the death of a complainant's associate after the initial investigation cleared her name. The complainant's request for summoning was based on witness statements during the trial, leading to a delay of over four years in deciding the application.

Findings of Court:
The order of the Trial Court and High Court regarding summoning were set aside; the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be reevaluated with proper consideration of the material evidence.

Issues: The legal issue centered on whether sufficient evidence existed to justify summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and whether the Trial Court correctly applied the statutory conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the need to reassess the sufficiency and relevance of newly collected evidence and emphasized that baseless assumptions regarding involvement in a crime without credible evidence are impermissible.

Result: Appeal allowed in part.

Table of Content
1. context of the case and initial allegations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. procedural history of summons application under cr.p.c. (Para 7 , 8)
3. supplementary report findings on absence of evidence. (Para 9 , 10)
4. arguments on maintainability of appeal and distinction of roles. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. importance of evidence for invoking section 319 of cr.p.c. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. court's directive on the trial court's responsibilities. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. procedural orders for trial court appearance. (Para 24 , 25)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The question that falls for consideration is whether or not the summoning of the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Cr.P.C.') to face trial in the case arising out of Case Crime No.98/2014 under Sections 302 /34 and 307/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (in short, the 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Kharela, District Mahoba, is justified in law.

4. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, on 11.03.2014 at about 4.30 p.m., the complainant and his associates, including Bharat Kumar Tiwari, Ram Milan @ Chainu, Pradeep Kumar and Lakhan Lal Tiwari together went to the fields situated at Basani area at Pahreta Mauza. The farmhouse of one of the accused Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh (who is husband of the appellant) is also there in those fields, where the said Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh, the appellant, Raghvendra Singh, Ram Singh and one unknown person were sitting on the roof. One person was armed with DBBL Gun and on seeing the complainant and his associates, the accused person allegedly started indiscriminate firing. The gun-shot fired by Raju Singh hit Chainu Nai. Raghvendra Singh allegedly fired from his mouser and the appellant (Smt. Rama Singh) is also alleged to have fired gun-shot. The firing led to fatal injuries to Bharat Kumar Tiwari, who was brought to the District Hospital Mahoba in injured condition and was declared dead. In the post mortem report dated 12.03.2014, the doctor found two gunshot injuries being an entry wound with an exit on the body of the deceased. The cause of death was opined as 'haemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem gun-shot injury'. Chainu Nai was medically examined on 11.03.2014 at Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi where he was provisionally diagnosed as having firearm injury on right shoulder. He was provided treatment. He was found to have had fracture of clavicle.

5. After investigation, charge-sheet no.40/2014 dated 10.06.2014 was filed against Ram Singh @ Ramu Singh under Section 302 /307 of IPC. So far as the appellant (Smt. Rama Singh) and her father-in-law (Raghvendra Singh) are concerned, their implication was found to be false and as such their names were ordered to be deleted. The husband of the appellant, namely, Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh was found absconding and as such proceedings under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. were drawn against him.

6. It seems that eventually the Investigating Officer came to a conclusion that Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh, the appellant as well as her father-in-law Raghvendra Singh -all were falsely implicated and submitted Report No.55/2015 in this regard.

7. Meanwhile, the charges against the main accused were framed and the trial commenced. The statements of PW-1 (Pushpraj Singh), PW-2 (Lakhan Lal) and PW-3 (Chainu Nai) were recorded. While the statement of Chainu Nai was still being recorded, the complainant (respondent no.2) moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on 20.07.2017 for summoning of the appellant and her husband (Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh) as additional accused to face trial under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC.

8. It may be noticed at this stage that the complainant had filed a Protest Petition against the Final Report No.55/2015. That Protest Petition was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 07.11.2015. The Sessions Judge, how