Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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