Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: 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