Evidence Recorded In Absence Of Accused For Summoning Him U/s. 319 CrPC Can’t Form Basis Of His Conviction: Allahabad High Court
The appellant approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the validity of a judgment passed by the Additional Session Judge.
Allahabad High Court, Lucknow
While ordering acquittal in a murder case, the Allahabad High Court has held that the evidence recorded in the absence of an accused person, which is relied upon for summoning him under Section 319 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) cannot form the basis of his conviction.
The appellant approached the High Court challenging the validity of a judgment passed by the Additional Session Judge in a case registered under Sections 302, 307,149, 506(2) & 148 of the IPC whereby the Trial Court had convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014), the Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held, “Therefore, the evidence recorded in absence of an accused person, which is relied upon for summoning him under Section 319 Cr.P.C., cannot form the basis of his conviction.”
Advocate Suyesh Pradhan represented the Appellant while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case was instituted on the basis of an FIR alleging that the informant's cousin was having animosity because of a prior criminal litigation against Bhau Singh, Bhanna Singh, Kallu Singh and Sport Singh and all the aforesaid persons were accused in a case under Section 307 IPC. The informant's cousin Vijay was sitting on a platform in front of his door when Bhau Singh, Bhanna Singh and Sport Singh, sons of Chhotkau Singh came there carrying firearms. The appellant Pramod Kumar Singh also came with them and he was carrying a country made pistol. All the aforesaid persons started firing gun shots. Vijay got seriously injured, and he succumbed to his injuries. The complainant also suffered injuries in the incident. Several persons reached there, and the accused persons ran away while threatening them.
The trial proceeded against the aforesaid four accused persons. After recording the testimony of some prosecution witnesses, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 CrPC for the summoning of the appellant to face the trial.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the statement of independent witness Ajay Kumar Singh was recorded on February 25, 2009. After the appellant was summoned to face the trial, Ajay Kumar Singh did not come forward to get his testimony recorded. The Bench thus stated, “The testimony of Ajay Kumar Singh recorded before the appellant was summoned to face the trial, cannot be read against the appellant”, it added.
The Bench noted that the Trial Court further held that when the Court has acted upon the testimonies to summon the appellant to face the trial under Section 319 CrPC, those testimonies could not be ignored and could form the basis of the conviction of the appellant. The Bench further explained that Section 273 Cr.P.C. provides that, except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader. “Therefore, the evidence recorded when the appellant had not been summoned by the trial Court and he was not present before the trial for this reason, cannot be relied upon by the trial Court”, it stated.
As per the Bench, the Trial Court had ignored the provision contained in Section 273 Cr.P.C. The Bench further noticed that the Trial Court had acted on the statement of Indrapal Singh recorded earlier, while the appellant had not been summoned to face the trial, but had ignored the statement of this witness recorded after the appellant was summoned, wherein he categorically stated that the appellant was not involved in the incident. “There is no other evidence available on record to establish the involvement of the appellant in commission of the alleged offence”, it noted.
Thus, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant in the commission of the alleged offences, the Bench allowed the appeal. The Bench thus acquitted the appellant of all the charges and directed his release from custody after complying with the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties for ensuring his appearance before the Supreme Court.
Cause Title: Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Guddu Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:37345-DB)