Calling Family Land "Ancestral" Is Not Enough — Must Trace Four Generations Of Male Lineage To Stop Father From Selling It: Punjab & Haryana HC Marks Of Candidates In Public Exam Not Private Information, Disclosable Under RTI: Allahabad High Court Integrity of a Judge Is Difficult to Prove by Direct Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Adverse ACR Entry Against Judicial Officer When State Reorganisation Is Already Done, Section 103 Of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act Cannot Undo It: Supreme Court Rules Sugarcane Societies Are Not Multi-State Bodies Bihar Cannot Take Over A Century-Old Library By Paying One Rupee As Compensation: Supreme Court Strikes Down 2015 Act Call Records Without Section 65-B Certificate Are Inadmissible, Oral Evidence Of Nodal Officer No Substitute: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Minority Shareholders Cannot Block Capital Reduction By Majority: Supreme Court Upholds Bharti Telecom's Buyout Of 1.09% Individual Investors At Rs.196.80 Per Share Travel Bans On Unvaccinated, No Disclosure Of Deaths Abroad: Supreme Court Finds COVID Vaccine Programme Violated Articles 14, 19 And 21 Bottle Cap Supplier Gets Anticipatory Bail In Spurious Liquor Case: Supreme Court Finds No Raid At His Premises, No Misuse Of Liberty DNA And Chemical Analyst Reports Cannot Be Read In Evidence Without Examining Scientific Experts: Bombay High Court Proof Of Agreement Alone Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Specific Performance - Continuous Readiness And Willingness Is A Condition Precedent: Chhattisgarh High Court Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Proof: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Bank Clerk’s Dismissal in Rs. 38.67 Lakh Pension Account Case Cheque Dishonour Due To ‘Account Blocked’ Cannot Attract Section 138 NI Act When Drawer Had No Control Over Frozen Account: Karnataka High Court Mere Domestic Discord Or Harassment Is Not Abetment Of Suicide: Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband’s Acquittal Silence On Incriminating Circumstance Can Strengthen Prosecution Case: Gauhati High Court On Section 313 CrPC Even In Heinous Offences, Accused Cannot Be Kept In Jail Indefinitely: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail After 7 Years Of Trial Delay Acquittal On Benefit Of Doubt Cannot Rescue Police Officer From Removal: Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal Despite Criminal Court's Not Guilty Verdict Trial Court Cannot Ignore High Court Directions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Fresh Enquiry And Initiates Disciplinary Action State Cannot Shrug Responsibility For Vaccine Deaths: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Frame No-Fault Compensation Policy For COVID-19 Adverse Events Supreme Court Streamlines Procedural Safeguards For Passive Euthanasia

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