Court Emphasizes on Cautious Exercise of Extraordinary Powers Under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
In a significant legal development, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the summoning order issued by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hamirpur, against Mukesh Singh @ Salaj Singh in a high-profile criminal case. The judgment, delivered by Justice Madan Pal Singh, highlighted the discretionary and extraordinary nature of powers under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), emphasizing that such powers should be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence emerges during the trial.
The case stemmed from a violent incident on September 6, 2021, when the victim, Mangal, was allegedly assaulted by named individuals while returning from work. The initial investigation exonerated Mukesh Singh, establishing his absence from the crime scene through independent witness statements and Call Detail Records. However, the trial court later summoned Singh to face trial based on the statements of prosecution witnesses, despite no new or stronger evidence being presented against him.
The High Court, referencing Supreme Court judgments in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reiterated that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires evidence stronger than a mere prima facie case and should not be exercised casually. Justice Singh noted that the trial court's summoning order lacked proper reasoning and failed to adhere to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, thereby warranting its quashing.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the summoning order was arbitrary and mechanical, highlighting the absence of fresh incriminating evidence against Singh. The court agreed, emphasizing that the statements of prosecution witnesses were mere reiterations of the FIR allegations and did not meet the higher degree of satisfaction required under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that extraordinary powers are exercised judiciously, safeguarding individuals from unwarranted legal proceedings based on insufficient evidence. The decision also reinforces the necessity for trial courts to thoroughly evaluate evidence before summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., aligning with the principles of justice and fairness.
Bottom Line:
The power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is discretionary and extraordinary in nature. It must be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence emerges during trial against a person not initially charge-sheeted. Mere probability of complicity is insufficient to summon an accused under this provision.
Statutory provision(s): Section 319 Cr.P.C., Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504 IPC, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Mukesh Singh @ Salaj Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2879437
