Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Summoning Additional Accused Without Prima Facie Evidence
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Gurjant Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another, has set aside an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, which allowed the summoning of the petitioners as additional accused in the case. The court held that the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction by summoning the petitioner without sufficient prima facie evidence.
The petitioners were among the accused named in FIR No. 60/2019, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (criminal intimidation), and others. During the trial, an injured witness, Rafi Kumar, appeared as PW-1 and implicated the petitioners. Subsequently, an application was filed under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking to summon the petitioners as additional accused.
Upon hearing the arguments, Justice Harkesh Manuja observed that the statement of PW-1 did not specifically attribute any role to petitioner No.1, except for allegations of lalkara (verbal threat). The court emphasized that for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., there must be evidence that, if un-rebutted, would lead to a conviction. Mere prima facie evidence, as assessed during the framing of charges, is insufficient.
The court referred to established legal parameters set by the Supreme Court and stated that the evidence must disclose a specific role or attribution to the accused. In the present case, apart from lalkara, no specific role or attribution was disclosed regarding petitioner No.1 in the witness statement. Consequently, the court concluded that the lower court failed to consider these legal specifications while passing the order to summon petitioner No.1.
The judgment highlighted that summoning an accused as an additional accused requires more than a prima facie case; there must be reliable evidence against the accused. In the absence of such evidence against petitioner No.1, the lower court had erred in summoning him as an additional accused.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition with respect to petitioner No.1 and set aside the order passed on 4th January 2020. The petition regarding petitioner No.2 was dismissed as it was not pressed, with the liberty to raise all available pleas at an appropriate stage during the trial.
This ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirms the importance of meeting the required legal specifications and presenting reliable evidence before summoning an accused as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The decision emphasizes the significance of ensuring that the evidence, if un-rebutted, would lead to a conviction in order to protect the rights of the accused and prevent undue harassment in the criminal justice system.
Decided on: 28.04.2023
Gurjant Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another
