Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Dharam Vir & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Pawan Kumar @ Pawan & Ors. – Respondents
CRR-400-2022 (O&M) and CRR-795-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-12-2022
Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitish Sharma, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana, Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity and the need for caution in exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the importance of evidence that, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
Headnote:
Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Summoning of additional accused - The court found merit in the application for summoning the petitioners as additional accused based on the evidence presented during the trial. However, the court held that the trial court erred in relying on the disclosure statements of the co-accused, which were in contrast to the allegations in the FIR and the testimony of the prosecution witness. The court emphasized the need for stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity and the exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. sparingly.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners as additional accused in a case where the two co-accused were already facing trial for a deadly attack on the complainant. The trial court allowed the application based on the evidence presented during the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in relying on the disclosure statements of the co-accused, which were in contrast to the allegations in the FIR and the testimony of the prosecution witness. The court emphasized the need for stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity and the exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. sparingly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in summoning the petitioners as additional accused based on the evidence presented during the trial, particularly the reliance on the disclosure statements of the co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court should have applied a stricter standard of satisfaction and considered stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity before summoning the petitioners as additional accused. The court emphasized the need for caution in exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the requirement for evidence that, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions and set aside the impugned order of the trial court, thereby rejecting the summoning of the petitioners as additional accused.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - By this common judgment, both the above-mentioned revision petitions, i.e. CRR-400-2022 and CRR-795-2022 shall be decided together.
2. Prayer in the above mentioned petitions is for setting aside the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide which application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning petitioners Dharam Vir and Pawan Kumar @ Pawan as additional accused to face trial with the two accused Naib Singh and Rambir @ Titu, who are already facing the trial, was allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was registered with the allegations that on 24.12.2018 at around 6.47 p.m., when the complainant, who is a labourer, was going towards his cattle shed and reached near the house of Prem, Ranbir @ Titu, Naib, Dharambir and Pawan Kumar came there and gave 5-6 slaps on the back of his head. The complainant escaped from there and entered into the shop of one Hussain and called upon his nephew Sandeep who said that due to cold weather he is tying cattle inside. Ranbir @ Titu threw burning 'parali' upon him. Naib suddenly gave a blow with sharp weapon taking it from the hands of Ranbir @ Titu and caught hold both of the hands of the complainant. Ranbir @ Titu gave dattar blow on his forehead and then gave a blow on the hand of the complainant, when he raised hand in order to save himself. Pawan Kumar, Naib and Dharam Vir gave many fist blows on eyes and gave beatings to kill him. Sandeep @ Dipu, who was trying to save him also got injuries on the fingers of his left hand. On hearing the noise, many people gathered at the spot. All the four, by conniving together, tried to kill the complainant with sharp weapon and tried to burn him and had done a deadly attack on him.
4. The police conducted the investigation, recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses and ultimately submitted the challan against two persons, i.e. Naib Singh and Ranbir @ Titu, whereas the petitioners were kept in column No.2 and no challan was presented against them. Thereafter, charges were framed against the aforesaid two persons under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 435 and 34 IPC.
5. After examination-in-chief of PW1 Yashin Khan-victim was recorded, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the present petitioners as additional accused and the same stands allowed vide impugned order. The operative part of the order reads as under :-
'6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the case file carefully and thoroughly.
7. Before adverting to the facts and evidence of the case, it is relevant to mention here that Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not permit to summon a person as additional accused merely because some allegations are levelled against him. Before a person can be summoned as an accused under Section 319 Cod or Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is necessary for the Court to satisfy that it appears from the evidence that such person not being accused has committed any offence for which he can be tried together with the accused.
8. In Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that power under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised by the Trial Court at any stage during the trial, i.e. before the conclusion of trial, to summon any person as an accused and face the trial in the ongoing case, once the Trial Court finds that there is some 'evidence' against such a person on the basis of which evidence it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty of offfence. The 'evidence' herein means the material that is brought before the Court during trial. Insofar as the material/evidence collected by the IO at the stage of inquiry is concerned, it can be utilised for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded
