More Than a Prima Facie Case Required But Short Of Satisfaction Leading To Conviction To Summon Additional Accused: P&H HC
In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed the revision petitions filed in the cases CRR-2144-2022 (Hempal Vs. State of Haryana & another) and CRR-2052-2022 (Arun Pratap & another Vs. State of Haryana & another), thereby upholding the order to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, presiding over the matter, made critical observations regarding the standards required for summoning additional accused. The court emphasized, “the crucial test to be applied for the purposes of summoning of a prospective accused is that there must be more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if it goes unrebutted would lead to conviction.” This statement forms a cornerstone in understanding the nuanced approach required in such legal proceedings.
The case stemmed from a murder investigation initially registered in 2020, involving offences under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the IPC. The petitioners, who were initially exonerated by the Investigating Agency, were later summoned to face trial, leading to the filing of the current revision petitions.
The High Court’s decision was grounded in the observation that the petitioners were explicitly named in the FIR and allegations of their involvement in the crime were significant. The court found no substantial reason for their exoneration in the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Justice Bedi noted, “from the evidence available on record, it appears that the petitioners could be tried together along with accused already facing Trial and it cannot be held that there were no reasonable prospects of the conviction of the petitioners.”
This judgment is pivotal in reinforcing the legal framework surrounding the summoning of additional accused in criminal trials. It underscores the importance of a thorough examination of evidence before making decisions that could significantly impact the course of a trial.
The High Court concluded by stating that the observations made in the judgment were solely for deciding the revision petitions, and the Trial Court should adjudicate upon the matter based on the evidence led before it, uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
Date of Decision: 16.12.2023
HEMPAL VS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
