Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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