Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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