Court Says Power Under Section 319 CrPC Is Extraordinary And Must Be Exercised Only On Strong And Cogent Evidence
Chandigarh, June 8: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that persons cannot be summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely on the basis of suspicion or allegations of previous threats, unless strong and cogent evidence appears against them during trial.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Darshan Kaur challenging the order of the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which had refused to summon private respondents as additional accused in a case arising out of the death of her son, Lovepreet Singh.
The Court held that the trial court had rightly declined the prayer, as the statements relied upon by the petitioner only raised suspicion and did not satisfy the higher threshold required for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Background
The FIR in the case was registered on the statement of Darshan Kaur, mother of deceased Lovepreet Singh.
According to the complainant, her son Lovepreet Singh was studying in Class XI at Little Flower Public Senior Secondary School, Dasuya. He was allegedly friends with Navjot Kaur, who was also studying in the same school.
The complainant alleged that the relationship between Lovepreet Singh and Navjot Kaur was not acceptable to Navjot Kaur’s family members and relatives.
As per the FIR version, Lovepreet Singh had left home on 17.01.2018. Later, certain persons allegedly came near the complainant’s workplace and showed her the photograph of her son on a mobile phone. The complainant alleged that threatening words were spoken to her.
On 18.01.2018, the family allegedly received information from a girl that Lovepreet Singh had jumped into the Uchhi Bassi Canal.
Police Filed Challan Only Against Main Accused
During investigation, the police treated the matter as a case of suicide.
Navjot Kaur was found involved and a challan was presented against her under Section 306 IPC. Charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against her on 07.08.2018.
The private respondents, who were family members or relatives of Navjot Kaur, were not sent to trial as accused.
The post-mortem examination of Lovepreet Singh was conducted by a Board of Doctors. As per the medical opinion, no poison was detected in the viscera and the cause of death was drowning.
Application Under Section 319 CrPC
During trial, the complainant sought summoning of the private respondents as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
The petitioner relied upon the statements of Manjit Singh, Darshan Kaur and Asha Rani, who had been examined as prosecution witnesses.
It was argued that the respondents had threatened the deceased and his family members and that the circumstances showed their involvement in the crime.
The petitioner contended that the police had wrongly proceeded only against Navjot Kaur and had failed to properly investigate the role of the private respondents.
The application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on 26.02.2021.
Aggrieved, the complainant approached the High Court in revision.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that there was enough material to summon the private respondents as additional accused.
It was submitted that Lovepreet Singh and Navjot Kaur were friends and that the friendship was opposed by her family members and relatives.
The petitioner contended that on 17.01.2018, the private respondents came to the petitioner’s school, showed the photograph of Lovepreet Singh and allegedly issued threats.
It was further argued that call recordings and other circumstances indicated that the deceased had expressed apprehension and had stated that if anything happened to him, the private respondents would be responsible.
On this basis, the petitioner argued that the case was not merely one of suicide but involved the role of the private respondents.
State’s Stand
The State opposed the petition.
It was submitted that investigation had been conducted and only Navjot Kaur was found involved in the offence under Section 306 IPC.
The State also relied on the medical opinion that the deceased had died due to drowning and that no poison was detected in the viscera.
It was further submitted that the inquiry had been conducted by the DSP, Sub-Division Dasuya, and the report had been approved by the SSP, Hoshiarpur.
Private Respondents Opposed Summoning
Counsel appearing for the private respondents also opposed the petition and supported the order passed by the trial court.
It was argued that the death was a case of suicide and that Navjot Kaur was already facing trial.
The private respondents submitted that the trial court had rightly refused to summon them as additional accused.
High Court Explains Scope Of Section 319 CrPC
The High Court examined the principles governing Section 319 CrPC.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which in turn relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab.
The Court reiterated that Section 319 CrPC enables a court to summon a person who is not already an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused already facing trial.
However, the Court emphasized that this power is extraordinary and discretionary.
It is not to be exercised merely because the court believes that some other person may also be guilty.
Strong And Cogent Evidence Required
The High Court noted that the degree of satisfaction required under Section 319 CrPC is higher than the satisfaction required at the stage of framing charge.
The evidence must be more than a mere prima facie case.
The test is whether strong and cogent evidence has appeared from the evidence led before the court, though the evidence need not be tested by cross-examination before the power can be exercised.
The Court observed that the power cannot be invoked in a casual or cavalier manner.
Mere Probability Of Involvement Is Not Enough
Justice Shekhawat observed that in the present case, it may be accepted that Lovepreet Singh was having a relationship with Navjot Kaur and that her family members objected to the relationship.
The Court also observed that even if it is accepted that threats had been extended to the deceased, that by itself would not be enough to infer the complicity of the private respondents.
The Court gave importance to the fact that investigation had treated the death as suicide and that the medical evidence showed death by drowning.
Witnesses Only Raised Suspicion
The High Court examined the statements of PW-2 Manjit Singh, PW-3 Darshan Kaur and PW-4 Asha Rani.
The Court held that from these statements, it was clear that the witnesses had merely raised suspicion regarding the involvement of the private respondents.
The Court held that it would be unfair to summon the private respondents as additional accused on the basis of such statements.
Trial Court Order Upheld
The High Court held that the trial court had rightly dismissed the application under Section 319 CrPC.
It found no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur.
Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.
Key Takeaway
The judgment reiterates that Section 319 CrPC cannot be used to summon additional accused merely because the complainant suspects their involvement.
Even where there are allegations of threats or strained relations, the court must be satisfied that strong and cogent evidence has emerged during trial.
The threshold under Section 319 CrPC is higher than the stage of framing charge. The power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly to ensure that innocent persons are not dragged into trial on the basis of suspicion alone.