Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Gated Community Association Cannot Exclude LIG/EWS Allottees, Single Unified Society Mandatory: Telangana High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

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