DATE: 01/04/2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
FACTS:
On February 9, 2020, an altercation occurred during a volleyball match in the village of Rasulpur Khurd, Karnal, between Mukesh and the appellant, Satbir Singh, who was on leave from his service in the Indian Army. Following the altercation, Mukesh, along with Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit, allegedly attacked the appellant. Mukesh inflicted two knife injuries on Satbir—one to his waist and another near his heart, penetrating his lungs—while the others allegedly assaulted him with sticks. The appellant lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital. Meanwhile, Mukesh also sustained injuries and was hospitalized. The police initially attempted to record statements on February 9 and 10 but were unable to do so due to the victims' conditions. Mukesh was discharged on February 12, and his statement led to the registration of an FIR against the appellant. However, medical reports suggested the possibility of self-inflicted injuries, leading to a closure report. On regaining consciousness on February 14, Satbir provided his statement, resulting in the registration of a cross-case under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506/34 IPC against Mukesh, Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit.
During the investigation, multiple inquiries by the police, including DSPs of Karnal, found no evidence of involvement by Rajesh and Ankit. Mukesh was arrested on February 28, 2020, and a charge sheet under Sections 307, 323, 324, 506/34 IPC was filed against him. The trial commenced, and on April 27, 2021, the appellant, examined as PW-1, reiterated his allegations against all accused and sought their summoning under Section 319 CrPC. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed this request on September 13, 2021. However, the High Court, in a revisional application, set aside this order on March 7, 2024, ruling that medical reports did not corroborate injuries allegedly caused by the other accused. The Court also noted that the altercation was spontaneous and lacked premeditation. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, which granted special leave to appeal, challenging the High Court’s ruling.
ISSUES:
The main issues in the case revolved around the conflict of the dissenting decisions made by the Sessions Court which was later reversed by the High Court.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court's order is set aside, and the Sessions Judge’s order allowing the summoning of Rajesh and Neeraj under Section 319 CrPC is restored. The appeal is allowed, with the clarification that no observations in this judgment shall be construed as determining their guilt. The Sessions Judge is encouraged to expedite the trial in accordance with the law.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, holding that the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised when there is evidence, beyond mere probability, suggesting the complicity of a person not originally charge-sheeted. The Sessions Judge’s decision to summon Rajesh and Neeraj was based on a level of satisfaction higher than a prima facie case, meeting the legal threshold for invoking Section 319 CrPC. The High Court, in interfering with the Sessions Judge’s well-reasoned order, failed to apply the correct standard and wrongly set aside a plausible conclusion.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that reports by police officials cannot conclusively negate an accused’s involvement when there exists credible witness testimony implicating them. The Sessions Judge had appropriately exercised discretion in summoning Rajesh and Neeraj based on the appellant’s examination-in-chief. Given that the interference by the High Court was unwarranted, a ‘hands-off’ approach would have been more appropriate. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the Sessions Judge’s order, ensuring that the trial proceeds without undue delay.
ANALYSIS:
The case highlights the judicial balancing act between the discretionary power of the trial court under Section 319 CrPC and the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court, in setting aside the High Court’s ruling, reinforced the principle that additional accused can be summoned if evidence, beyond mere probability, supports their involvement. The Sessions Judge, relying on the appellant’s testimony and legal precedent from Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, found sufficient grounds to summon Rajesh and Neeraj. In contrast, the High Court overstepped by placing undue reliance on medical reports and police inquiries while disregarding the evidentiary value of witness testimony. This ruling underscores that while police investigations are crucial, they do not hold absolute authority in determining culpability, especially when credible direct evidence suggests a different narrative.
Moreover, the decision reaffirms that the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, should not interfere merely because an alternative view exists, particularly when the trial court’s conclusion is legally sound. By emphasizing that the satisfaction required for summoning an additional accused is higher than a prima facie case but lower than the certainty of conviction, the Supreme Court has clarified the threshold for invoking Section 319 CrPC. This ensures that accused individuals are not arbitrarily summoned, yet justice is not hindered by procedural technicalities. The ruling ultimately safeguards the integrity of trial proceedings, ensuring that all individuals reasonably suspected of involvement in a crime are given due process without undue judicial interference.
info@adhwaitha.com
