Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Sreelekha @ Lekha, W/o. Chandran & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Kannur & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.MC No. 8119 of 2017
Decided On : 21-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Sri. Sunny Mathew.
For the Respondent: Sri. Sangeetha Raj N.R., Public Prosecutor, Sri. M. Sasindran.
The court emphasized that the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and requires strong evidence of involvement, which was not present in this case.
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 319 - Invocation of extraordinary power - The trial court's decision to array additional accused based on circumstantial evidence was challenged - The court emphasized that such power must be exercised sparingly and only when compelling reasons exist - The evidence presented did not sufficiently implicate the petitioners in the crime. (Paras 8, 10, 12)
(B) Legal standard for invoking Section 319 - The court clarified that the threshold for summoning additional accused is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt but requires strong and cogent evidence of involvement in the crime. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, Jisha, was stabbed to death in her home, and the accused was initially the sole suspect. The trial court later sought to add additional accused based on circumstantial evidence, which was contested by the petitioners. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court's order to array additional accused was not supported by sufficient evidence and set aside the order. (Paras 11, 12)
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court had sufficient grounds to invoke Section 319 and the adequacy of evidence against the petitioners. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court must not act mechanically and should only invoke Section 319 when there is compelling evidence of involvement, which was lacking in this case. (Paras 8, 12)
Result: The Crl.M.C. stands allowed.
ORDER :
Annexure A1 order passed by the Additional Sessions Court - II, Kasaragod (for short, ‘the trial court’) in S.C. No.488/2012 under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( Cr.P.C.) is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.
2. One Jisha was stabbed to death at her house situated at Adukkamparambu in Madikai Panchayat at about 8.45 pm on 19.02.2012. The local Police registered an FIR and arrayed the maid servant of the house, one Mr. Tushar Sen Malik @ Madan Malik, a native of Odisha, as the sole accused. The local police initially conducted the investigation and filed the final report against the accused. The prosecution allegation is that the accused, who was employed by PW3 Chandran in his house to look after his aged father, planned to kill PW1 Sreelekha, but murdered the deceased Jisha on mistaken identity by stabbing her with a knife at 8.45 p.m. on 19.02.2012. Dissatisfied with the final report, the father of the deceased filed a Writ Petition before this Court as W.P.(C) No.9303/2013 seeking investigation by CBI. This Court, by its judgment dated 07.08.2013, directed the Crime Branch to take over the investigation and conduct further investigation. Accordingly, CBCID, Kannur Unit, took up the investigation and filed the final report, arriving at the same conclusion as the local police.
3. The accused appeared before the trial court. He pleaded not guilty. The trial of the case started on 12.07.2017. The prosecution examined 35 witnesses out of 77 witnesses cited; Exts.P1 to P31 were marked, and MOs 1 to 17 were identified. Thereafter, the trial court found that PWs 1 and 3 were also involved in the commission of the offence, and they were ordered to be arrayed as additional accused Nos.2 and 3 by invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C. PW3 is the brother of the husband of the deceased and PW1 is the wife of PW3.
4. The above Crl. M.C. has been filed by PWs 1 and 3 challenging the order (Annexure A1) arraying them as additional accused Nos.2 and 3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, as per the order dated 19.01.2018, allowed the above Crl.M.C. and all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 were quashed. Thereafter, the father of the deceased, who was examined as PW16, filed Crl.M.A. No.1529/2018 to recall the order dated 19.01.2018 and to rehear the Crl.M.C, along with Crl.M.A.No.1536/2018 to grant leave to file an application for recalling the order. He had also filed Crl.M.A. No.1530/2018 to get himself impleaded in the Crl.M.C. All these applications are allowed. The petitioner therein is impleaded as additional respondent No.3, and the order dated 19.01.2018 is recalled.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Sunny Mathew and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Sri. M. Sasindran.
6. The investigating officer filed a detailed report.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the power exercisable under Section 319 of Cr.P.C is an extraordinary one, and it should be exercised sparingly and with caution only if compelling reasons exist. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial court failed to objectively satisfy itself before deciding to invoke the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The order impugned is manifestly illegal and liable to be set aside, submitted the counsel. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the trial court invoked its power based on the evidence, and there is no reason for interference.
8. Section 319 of Cr.P.C (Section 358 of BNSS) empowers the court holding trial to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such a person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing the trial. A person not named in the FIR, or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted, or a person who has been discharged, can be summoned under Section 319 of Cr.P.C (Section 358 of BNSS) provided it appears from evidence
