Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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