Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court

TO SUMMON U/S 319 CR.P.C. - EVIDENCE MUST ESTABLISH THE PERSON'S INVOLVEMENT - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld a summoning order issued by a Special Court in a criminal appeal. The court emphasized the importance of evidence showing the involvement of a person in a crime, particularly in cases of assault and abuse. The judgment highlights the discretionary power granted under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and the necessity to establish a prima facie case against the accused.

The case, Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2022, involved Jitendra Nath Mishra as the appellant and the State of U.P. & Anr as the respondents. The appellant challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed their appeal against a summoning order issued by the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (1989 Act).

The allegations in the case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Khalilabad Police Station in District Sant Kabir Nagar. The complainant accused Dharmendra Nath Mishra (the brother of the appellant), the appellant himself, and an unknown person of assaulting and abusing them. The FIR invoked several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the 1989 Act.

During the trial, the complainant and his wife testified as prosecution witnesses, providing consistent accounts of the assault and abuse. While the appellant was not named in the original FIR, the court noted that he was implicated as one of the assailants and that he is the sibling of Dharmendra.

The Supreme Court's observations focused on the exercise of power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers the court to summon a person not named in the FIR but shown to be involved in the crime. The court emphasized that the evidence must establish the person's involvement and that they should be tried alongside the accused already named.

In this case, the court found that the evidence provided by the complainant and his wife justified the Special Court's summoning order. The court acknowledged the existence of material indicating the appellant's involvement, given his sibling relationship with Dharmendra and the consistent testimonies regarding the assault and abuse.

While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized that the points raised by the appellant, including the delay in lodging the FIR and contradictions in testimonies, could be further addressed during the trial before the Special Court. The court encouraged the expedited proceedings, urging the Special Court to consider the appellant's arguments and any additional points raised during the trial.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the discretionary power of the court to summon individuals implicated in crimes based on the evidence presented. It underscores the importance of a fair trial and highlights the need for a prima facie case against the accused before exercising the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.

Date of Decision: June 2, 2023

JITENDRA NATH MISHRA vs STATE OF U.P. & ANR 

Latest Legal News