Application to Summon Additional Accused Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Dismissed Due to Insufficient Evidence
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court upheld the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kaushambi, in the case involving the alleged dowry death of Radhika, daughter of the petitioner Man Singh. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by Man Singh, who sought to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
The case, titled "Man Singh v. State of U.P.," revolved around the tragic demise of Radhika, whose marriage to Manoj was solemnized five years prior to the incident. According to the prosecution, Radhika was subjected to demands for additional dowry, including a buffalo and a golden ring, by her husband Manoj and his family. It was alleged that she was ultimately killed by her husband and in-laws on January 7, 2020. An FIR was registered under Sections 498-A, 302 I.P.C., and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at the Mohabbatpur Painsa Police Station, District Kaushambi.
During the investigation, statements from 19 witnesses were recorded, but charges were only filed against Manoj, the husband. Man Singh, dissatisfied with the exclusion of other family members as accused, filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon them for trial. This application was rejected by the trial court on November 8, 2024, prompting Man Singh to file a revision petition.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Chawan Prakash, emphasized the extraordinary nature of the power granted under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which allows a trial court to summon additional accused based solely on evidence presented during the trial. The court reiterated the principle that mere prima facie evidence is insufficient; a higher threshold of more than prima facie evidence is required to exercise this power.
Relying on precedents, including the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the High Court affirmed that the trial court was justified in its decision. It found that the evidence presented, particularly the statements of prosecution witnesses PW-1 Man Singh and PW-2 Indresh Singh, did not meet the requisite threshold to summon the additional accused.
The court further noted that the trial court had carefully considered the evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Akhilesh Kumar (PW-3), which indicated the cause of death as hanging, and the testimony of Investigating Officer Rajvir Singh (PW-5), who stated that Manoj and his wife lived separately from the other accused.
Ultimately, the High Court found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it, affirming the trial court's decision to reject the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Bottom Line:
Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers the trial court to summon a person to face trial who is not originally an accused in the case, but such power should be exercised sparingly and only on the basis of evidence adduced before the court during the trial.
Statutory provision(s): Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Man Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2834734
