Accused Absconder Summoned to Face Trial in Decades-Old Ayodhya Murder Case

Allahabad High Court Upholds Trial Court's Decision to Summon Accused Under Section 319 CrPC Based on Witness Testimony

Lucknow: In a significant development concerning a murder trial pending since 1996, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a plea by an accused challenging the trial court's order to summon him under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The accused, Shyam Narayan Singh , who was initially charge-sheeted but declared an absconder, is now required to face trial based on evidence presented by witnesses during the ongoing proceedings against other co-accused.

The application filed under Section 482 CrPC by Shyam Narayan Singh challenged the order dated November 22, 2024, passed by the Special Judge, Gangster/Additional Sessions Judge (V), Ayodhya, in Sessions Trial No. 895 of 1996. The trial court had exercised its power under Section 319 CrPC to summon the applicant to face trial for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Case Background

The case originates from an FIR lodged on June 27, 1996, reporting the disappearance and subsequent discovery of the body of Preeti Kumar Pandey . According to the FIR, on June 23, 1996, the deceased went to the applicant Shyam Narayan Singh 's house to watch television and was later seen leaving with co-accused Ram Kumar Das . The deceased never returned, and his body was found tied in a sack in a well on June 27, 1996. The FIR named Shyam Narayan Singh and Ram Kumar Das based on suspicion.

Following the investigation, a charge sheet dated September 8, 1996, was filed against Shyam Narayan Singh , Hariram , Ram Kumar Das , and Sushil Kumar under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC. However, Shyam Narayan Singh and Hariram were declared absconders, and the charge sheet was filed against them in absentia.

Previous Legal Battles

Proceedings commenced against the apprehended co-accused Ram Kumar Das and Sushil Kumar . In 2000, the trial court issued Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) against the applicant and Hariram , seemingly based on the statement of PW-1 (informant Ram Feran Pandey). The applicant challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court.

In an order dated March 24, 2003, the High Court quashed the 2000 NBW order, noting that the evidence of PW-1 at that stage was insufficient to summon the applicant under Section 319 CrPC. However, the High Court explicitly stated that this order would "not bar the court from re-summoning the accused under section 319 of the Cr.P.C if there is sufficient evidence against him."

Despite being an absconder initially, the court record indicates that the applicant Shyam Narayan Singh was regularly appearing and making signatures on the order sheet before the trial court during subsequent proceedings.

Fresh Evidence Emerges During Trial

During the ongoing trial against the other accused, the prosecution moved an application to examine two crucial witnesses: Sharda Devi (mother of the deceased) and Suchita Tiwari (sister of the deceased). These witnesses were examined as PW-13 and PW-14, respectively.

In their testimonies, both PW-13 and PW-14 directly implicated the applicant, Shyam Narayan Singh , along with his son Sushil Kumar and Ram Kumar Das , in the murder and conspiracy.

Arguments Before the High Court

Based on this new evidence and the fact that the applicant was originally charge-sheeted, the prosecution filed a fresh application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon Shyam Narayan Singh . The trial court allowed this application on November 22, 2024, leading to the present challenge before the High Court.

Counsel for the applicant argued that the previous High Court order had already interfered with a similar summoning attempt and that the statements of PW-13 and PW-14 were insufficient to make out any offence against the applicant, thus requiring the High Court's intervention.

The State's counsel countered that the applicant was never exonerated by the investigation and was, in fact, charge-sheeted as an absconder. He argued that the trial court's decision was based on the entire facts, including the intact charge sheet and the direct evidence from the material witnesses (PW-13 and PW-14) who testified to the applicant's involvement. He also pointed out that the deceased was last seen at the applicant's house, suggesting his involvement could not be ruled out at this stage.

High Court's Ruling

Justice Saurabh Lavania , presiding over the case, considered the arguments and perused the record, including the original charge sheet and the testimonies of the witnesses. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments clarifying the scope and exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, including Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab , Rajesh and Others vs. State of Haryana , and Manjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana .

The Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised based only on the "evidence" recorded before the court during the trial (witness statements and documents produced in court), not merely on material collected during the investigation. This power can be exercised against a person not named in the FIR, not charge-sheeted, or even one who has been discharged, provided sufficient evidence emerges during the trial.

Crucially, the Court distinguished the applicant's case, noting he was charge-sheeted, albeit as an absconder. While the previous High Court order quashed the earlier NBW/summoning attempt, it explicitly permitted re-summoning under Section 319 CrPC if sufficient evidence became available later.

The Court found that the testimonies of PW-13 (mother) and PW-14 (sister), who directly implicated the applicant in the murder conspiracy/act, constituted sufficient "evidence" as contemplated by Section 319 CrPC for the trial court to summon the applicant. The Court held that the trial court was not required to appreciate the evidence on its merits at the summoning stage but only needed to find sufficient grounds for proceeding against the person.

Considering the evidence of PW-13 and PW-14, the fact that the applicant was initially charge-sheeted (and never exonerated by the IO), and the evidence showing the deceased was last seen at the applicant's house, the High Court concluded that there was sufficient basis for the trial court to record its satisfaction for summoning the applicant under Section 319 CrPC.

Implications

Dismissing the application, the High Court found no force in the applicant's challenge. The decision clears the way for Shyam Narayan Singh to be joined as an accused in the decades-old murder trial, which will now proceed against him along with the co-accused already facing proceedings. The judgment underscores the trial court's power under Section 319 CrPC to bring in additional accused when evidence warranting their trial emerges during the course of the proceedings, even if they were previously treated as absconders or not summoned at an earlier stage.

The case is now listed before the trial court on December 2, 2024, for the applicant's appearance.