Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

Court can Summon Additional Accused Based on Prima Facie Evidence, “judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur": Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope and application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) in criminal trials. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, held that the court has the power to summon additional accused individuals if prima facie evidence indicates their guilt, even if they were not named as accused during the initial investigation.

The case in question, Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2023, arose from a criminal trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Haryana, involving an incident that occurred on September 7, 2017. The appellant, Sandeep Kumar, who was the informant and a prosecution witness (PW-9) in the trial, moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon three individuals, Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan, as accused. These three individuals were named in the First Information Report (FIR) but were not charged in the chargesheet.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, in the judgment, emphasized that the court's power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is to be exercised cautiously, but if evidence during the trial shows that a person has committed an offense for which they could be tried with the accused, the court can proceed against such person as an accused. Quoting the legal maxim "judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur," which means "the judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted," the court highlighted the duty of the court to ensure justice by punishing the real culprits.

The Supreme Court rejected the revision filed by one of the summoned accused, Ramesh Gandhi, challenging the summoning order. The court found that the trial court had correctly exercised its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C based on the prima facie evidence provided by the prosecution witness (PW-9). The High Court's decision to set aside the summoning order was deemed to be erroneous as it delved into the merits of the evidence, which should be scrutinized during the trial.

This landmark ruling reaffirms the court's commitment to seeking the truth and ensuring that all individuals responsible for a crime are brought to justice. It also highlights the importance of Section 319 Cr.P.C in holding accountable those who might have been initially overlooked during the investigation but are later found to be involved in the offense.

The judgment sets a precedent for future cases, emphasizing that the court's power to summon additional accused individuals should be exercised judiciously, based on prima facie evidence, and with the objective of ensuring a fair trial that upholds the principles of justice and truth.

Date of Decision: July 28, 2023

SANDEEP KUMAR vs  THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.           

Latest Legal News