SC Directs Trial Court To Follow Previously Set Guidelines To Exercise Power Under Section 319 CrPc

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari reiterated the guidelines to be followed while dealing with a dowry death case. The court said that the guidelines laid down in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira by the constitutional bench need to be followed for exercising powers under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the matter at hand an FIR was lodged under Sections 304 B, 498 A, 406, 323 and 34 of Indian Penal Code by the brother of a deceased woman who died within a few months of her marriage with a man named Aamir. He alleged that Aamir and his family were given a dowry including Rs.3 Lakhs in cash, 3 kg of silver, 30 grams of gold and other household furniture. It has been alleged that the man and his family tortured the complainant’s sister as they were dissatisfied by the dowry and it was telephonically informed on July 17, 2017 that the sister hung herself to death.

The brother of the deceased submitted before the trial court all the allegations against the appellants herein and resultantly filed an application under section 319 of CrPc to summon the appellants as additional accused. 

The Trial Court dismissed the said application observing that the extraordinary powers vested under section 319 of the act can be exercised only if the evidence on record strongly indicates the involvement of the persons aimed to be prosecuted. When the brother approached the high court after being aggrieved by the order of the trial court, his petition was allowed and the appellants were summoned to face trial.

It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the High Court has committed a grave error of law   in   not   appreciating   that   the   powers   under   Section   319 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly only if the evidence points out the possible involvement of the persons to be   prosecuted.   There   is   not   an   iota   of   evidence   against   the appellants to glean a conclusion of their involvement.

The Supreme Court noted that the only issue to be considered is whether there is sufficient evidence against the appellants to summon the additional accused. For better understanding section 319 can be referred here:

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.

The court relied on the case of Hardeep Singh to noted that the word ‘evidence’ under section 319 of Cr.Pc. has to be broadly understood and the materials which have come before the court in course of enquiry can be used for:

1. Corroboration of evidence recorded by court after commencement of trial.
2. For exercise of power under section 319 Cr.Pc. and 
3. Also, to add an accused whose name is shown in column no.2 of the chargesheet.

In the case of Hardeep Singh it was also explained that the statement made in examination- in – chief is also evidence and the court need not wait for evidence against the person proposed to be prosecuted while exercising its power under section 319 of  Cr.Pc.

The court further relied on the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira where the Supreme Court constitution bench refreshed the guidelines to be followed by the competent court while exercising power under section 319 of Cr.Pc.

These guidelines can be listed as:

(i) if the competent court finds evidence or if application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is filed, regarding involvement of any other person in committing the offence based on evidence "recorded at any stage in the trial" before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage and the Court shall proceed to decide the fate of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.;

(ii) if the Court decides to summon an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case and depending upon the stage at which the order is passed, the trial Court shall apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be tried along with other accused or separately; and

(iii) if the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-up case, such power can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the spilt-up (bifurcated trial).

In the light of the aforementioned the court allowed summoning of the father of the husband to be summoned while set aside the order to summon rest of the appellants as the court observed that they could not be subjected to trial on the basis of mere suspicion. The court further directed the trial court to follow the mentioned guidelines while dealing with application against the father of the husband and proceed in accordance with law.

CASE: JUHRU & ORS V. KARIM & ANR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.549 OF 2023