'Use Sparingly, Obligatory With Strong Evidence': SC On CrPC Section For Prospective Accused
Section 319 of the CrPC empowers the court to proceed against anyone, even if not cited as an accused, based on evidence or trial that reveals the person's complicity
The Supreme Court has ruled that the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly. If evidence, however, reveals the involvement of the prospective accused, it becomes obligatory for the authority to use this power.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi allowed an appeal by Shiv Baran, the complainant in his brother's 2017 murder case, against the Allahabad High Court's order. The high court had set aside the summons issued against Rajendra Prasad Yadav, despite him being named in the FIR and not charged by the police.
Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers the court to proceed against anyone, even if not cited as an accused, based on evidence collected during the inquiry or trial that reveals the person's complicity.
'The object is to ensure that no guilty person should be allowed to escape the process of law, which is based on the doctrine of judex damnatur cum nocens absolviture (judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted)," the bench observed.
The bench stated that the provision imposes a duty on the court to ensure the real culprit does not go unpunished, as part of a fair trial. 'The power to be exercised, needless to add, is to be with utmost caution and not in a casual, callous or cavalier manner – for the same is only to advance the cause of justice and not be a tool to harass the individual or result into an abuse of the process of law," it said.
During the trial, prosecution witnesses revealed the role of the prospective accused. The HC said a person cannot be summoned as an accused without strong motive evidence. In the absence of cogent material indicating the accused's complicity, the trial court committed an error in its order.
The court highlighted that the Constitution bench in Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab (2014) held that the court need not wait for evidence against the proposed accused to be tested by cross-examination.
The test of satisfaction laid down in Hardeep Singh was reiterated by the court in Labhuji Amratji Thakor Vs State of Gujarat (2019), requiring more than a prima facie case at the time of framing charges but less than the satisfaction warranting conviction.
The bench said under this section, the court could proceed against a person named in the FIR but not implicated by the investigating officer in the chargesheet, provided statutory mandates are fulfilled.
The principles the trial court should follow while exercising power under this section include:
This provision protects victims and society at large, ensuring perpetrators do not escape the force of law;
It is the court's duty to ensure the guilty are not unpunished;
The trial court's power is broad but not unbridled, exercised only based on evidence adduced before it;
The trial court can summon a person not named in the FIR or chargesheet if the evidence adduced implicates him;
This power should not be used regularly or cavalierly, only with strong or cogent evidence beyond mere probability;
The degree of satisfaction required is stricter than the prima facie case needed at the time of framing charges;
The court should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage, focusing on whether 'such person could be tried' rather than 'should be tried'.
Reverting to the case facts, the bench noted evidence from three alleged eyewitnesses suggested Rajendra's involvement, showing he was present at the scene armed with a stick.
'The high court tried to apply the same standard in deciding this application as is ordinarily used at the end of the trial in determining the conviction or otherwise of the accused. Whereas it ought to have considered that the standard of satisfaction required is short of the standard necessary for passing a final judgment after trial," the bench said.
The court noted that Rajendra, although not charge-sheeted, was named in the FIR, and the evidence thus far suggests his involvement. At this stage, sufficient material exists to put him on trial, with his conviction to be determined by a full inquiry at the trial's end. Commenting on his conviction now would be premature.
The first informant specifically mentioned Rajendra as one who came with others, sharing common intent, abusing and beating, causing his brother's death and serious injuries to others.
'In our considered view, the High Court proceeded to conduct a mini trial solely relying upon the affidavits submitted before the Superintendent of Police qua the innocence of respondent No.2. It erred in giving a categorical finding on the merits of PW1, the injured eyewitness not to have named respondent No.2, which we find is based on erroneous assumption and contrary to the factual position emerging from the record," the bench said.
It observed that the HC erred in noting witnesses stated nothing about the crime's motive, were silent on common intention, absence of the incident's sequence, and who the aggressor was.
'All these questions, amongst others, are relevant or not is a matter to be considered at the stage of final adjudication," it said, setting aside the HC order and restoring the summons issued against the respondent no 2.
The court directed the parties to appear before the trial court on August 28 to fully cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The trial was expedited to be completed within 18 months.
About the Author
Sanya Talwar
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...Read More
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
Code of Criminal Procedure
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 18, 2025, 02:58 IST
News india 'Use Sparingly, Obligatory With Strong Evidence': SC On CrPC Section For Prospective Accused
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Disability no licence to fire govt employees: SC
The employer's discretion ends where the employee's dignity begins, the Supreme Court held while ruling that public sector employers cannot mechanically retire employees who acquire disabilities during service without first exploring meaningful alternatives for their redeployment. Disability no licence to fire govt employees: SC 'While judicial restraint guards against overreach, it must not become an excuse for disengagement from injustice. When an employee is removed from service for a condition he did not choose, and where viable alternatives are ignored, the Court is not crossing a line by intervening, it is upholding one drawn by the Constitution itself,' said a bench of justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, in a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional right to dignity and equality in employment. The August 1 judgment came as the bench directed the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) to reinstate a driver who was compulsorily retired in 2016 after being diagnosed with colour blindness. Coming down hard on TSRTC for its failure to consider alternative roles for the driver, who had expressed willingness to be reassigned to a non-driving post, the court held that this omission was not just an administrative lapse, but a violation of both statutory obligations and constitutional principles. The judgment drew upon the principle that public employers are duty-bound to provide 'reasonable accommodation' to employees who acquire disabilities during service. Retirement on medical grounds, the court said, must be a measure of last resort, only after all viable options for redeployment have been exhausted. 'The obligation to reasonably accommodate such employees is not just a matter of administrative grace, but a constitutional and statutory imperative, rooted in the principles of non-discrimination, dignity and equal treatment,' noted the bench. The judgment further drew strength from a consistent line of rulings to reaffirm that beneficial legislation must be interpreted purposively to protect the rights of disabled employees. 'Employment security is central not only to individual dignity but also to familial survival,' said the court, emphasising that livelihood cannot be severed 'by the stroke of a medical certificate' without first exhausting all avenues for reassignment. The court cited the example of the driver seeking reassignment to the post of Shramik (helper) , a job that did not require normal colour vision. However, the Corporation did not even attempt to assess his suitability for such a role. According to the bench, the burden lies on the employer, not the employee, to prove that no suitable post exists or can be reasonably created. The court also referenced the pertinent provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and a binding memorandum of settlement signed by TSRTC in 1979, which explicitly mandated alternate employment for colour-blind drivers with pay protection and continuity of service. The court ruled that TSRTC failed to comply with this binding obligation, adding that internal circulars cited by the Corporation in denying alternate employment, were merely administrative instructions and could not override statutory service conditions created by an industrial settlement. The bench further made it clear that even in the absence of such a settlement, constitutional and statutory principles demand the accommodation of employees who develop disabilities. 'This obligation is not rooted in compassion, but in constitutional discipline and statutory expectation,' it stated. The bench thus ordered the Corporation to appoint the driver to a suitable post consistent with his condition, at the same pay grade he held in 2016, within eight weeks. It also directed payment of 25% of arrears from the date of retirement until reinstatement and held that the intervening period must be treated as continuous service. 'In doing so, we not only vindicate the appellant's rights but also reaffirm our constitutional commitment to a just and humane employer-employee relationship,' the bench concluded.
Hans India
3 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC to examine plea to repeal Bodh Gaya temple law
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea for repealing the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949 and replacing it with a central law for the proper control, management and administration of Mahabodhi temple in Bihar. The Mahabodhi Temple Complex in Bihar's Bodh Gaya, a UNESCO World Heritage site, is one of the four holy areas related to the life of Lord Gautam Buddha. Bodh Gaya is a place where Lord Buddha is believed to have attained enlightenment. The plea, which has also challenged the validity of the 1949 Act, came up for hearing before a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh. The petitioner's counsel said a plea with identical prayers was pending in the apex court. The bench issued notice to the Centre and others seeking their responses on the petition and tagged it for hearing along with the pending plea. The plea has sought to declare the 1949 Act as unconstitutional alleging it was 'inconsistent' with Article 13 of the Constitution. Article 13 relates to laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental petition has also sought a direction to the authorities concerned to remove encroachments made in the premises of the Bodh Gaya temple for the exclusive worship of Buddhists around the world in order to manage, control and administer the religious, faith, belief and worship in the interest of justice. On June 30, the apex court refused to entertain a separate plea challenging the vires of the 1949 Act and asked the petitioner to moved high court concerned. The 1949 Act relates to the better management of the temple.
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Duo held in 2024 pharma drugs seizure discharged due to lack of evidence
MUMBAI: The sessions court on Monday discharged two men who were named as accused in a 2024 pharmaceutical drug seizure case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, observing that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against them and had not produced any corroborative evidence to show their involvement in the alleged crime. (Shutterstock) On June 12, 2024, the Azad Maidan Unit of the Anti-Barcotics Cell seized 2,160 tablets and 74 strips containing pheniramine maleate from a parked handcart close to a rickshaw stand in front of the Kismat Hostel near Masjid Station. Three men were booked in the case, out of which accused No. 3, in his statement to the ANC, had admitted that the contraband material belonged to him. While hearing the plea of Saddam Sheikh and Imran Khan, the owners of the handcart seeking to be discharged from the case, additional sessions judge RB Rote said, 'I find that the evidence as collected during the investigation, and as relied on by the prosecution, is not sufficient to frame charges against accused No. 1 and 2.' While the seizure itself was not disputed, the court noted that the prosecution failed to prove that Sheikh and Khan were the owners of the recovered contraband material. Moreover, the prosecution primarily relied on witness statements recorded under Section 161 (process of examination of witnesses by police during an investigation) of the CrPC and the seizure panchnama. Even there, the court noted that the witnesses who spoke about the accused were not present at the scene and their information was based on hearsay. 'Such type of statements cannot be the basis for framing charges against the accused persons,' said additional Sessions Judge R B Rote while discharging the two. The court further highlighted the absence of forensic evidence or any chemical analysis linking the seized drugs to the accused. Regarding the nature of the substance, the court noted that the recovered pheniramine maleate did not qualify as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, which further weakened the case. 'The seized contraband in the present matter is of non-commercial quantity and there is no material on record to show that the accused persons were found in possession of the said contraband or they were the owners of the said contraband.' The judge concluded that mere recovery of drugs was insufficient to frame charges under the NDPS Act without establishing conscious possession or ownership. 'The only material on record is that some contraband was recovered from a place, but the link of the accused persons with the said contraband is not established. Therefore, I find that the evidence, as collected during the investigation and as relied on by the prosecution, is not sufficient to frame charges against the accused persons,' the court stated.
