The standard of proof for summoning a person as an accused under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code, requires stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Shri Raj Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Paritosh Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Aligarh, in S.T.No.927 of 2012 (State vs. Raju Singh and others), under sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS. Gandhipark, District Aligarh by which the learned trial court has rejected the application of the applicant-revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the accused Ram Prakash for trial in the aforesaid case.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that an application 39 Kha under section 319 Cr.P.C. was given by the complainant stating that the name of Ram Prakash was mentioned in the First Information Report and PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in their statements have stated that the said Ram Prakash was also involved in commission of crime. According to the complainant this fact was brought in the knowledge of said Ram Prakash that the accused persons are demanding rupees five lakh in dowry and requested that he should try to convince them but Sri Ram Prakash said that if they give rupees five lakh, the matter will be over. On the basis of the statements of witnesses, the complainant has requested to summon said Ramprakash as an accused in the said trial under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court applying the law laid down in Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab, 2014 AIR(SC) 1400, rejected the said application by the impugned order.

5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision has been filed and the impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the order is illegal and is not based on evidence on record. The learned court has committed error and has wrongly appreciated the evidence without applying judicial mind.

6. Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads as under :-

"319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub - section (1), then-

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

7. In Hardeep Singh (supra), the Constitution Bench has settled the law in respect of Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code. that the standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an accused under Section 319 is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against an accused. The Supreme Court observed for the purpose of Section 319 as under:

"........what is, therefore, necessary for the Court is to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted, may lead to the conviction of a person sought to be added as the accused in the case."

Regarding the degree of satisfaction necessary for framing a charge, the Court observed:

"However, there is a series of cases wherein this court while dealing with the provisions of Sections 227, 228, 239, 240, 241, 242 and 245 of the Cr.P.C., has co