Degree Of Satisfaction Recorded While Summoning A Person As An Additional Accused Should Be More Than Standards Required During Framing Of Charges: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court set aside the summoning Order issued by the Trial Court against the Applicants as additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC.
The Allahabad High Court has held that the degree of satisfaction required to be recorded by the Trial Court while summoning a person as an additional accused should be more than the standards required at the stage of framing of charges.
The Court set aside the summoning Order issued by the Trial Court against the Applicants as additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court held the evidence on record must strongly suggest more than a prima facie case against such a person and their involvement in the commission of the crime.
A Single Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj held, “At this juncture, when the trial has already commenced, the degree of satisfaction required to be recorded by the trial court while summoning any other person as additional accused, should be more than the standards required at the stage of framing of charges. In other words, the evidence on record must strongly suggest more than a "prima facie" case against such a person and his involvement in commission of the crime.”
Advocate Tung Nath Tewari represented the Applicants, while Government Advocate R.C. Gupta appeared for the Opposite Party.
Brief Facts
The investigating officer had initially charged eight accused individuals, including the applicants under Sections 147, 302 and 406 of the IPC. However, the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. only named five accused, not including the Applicants. During the trial, an application under Section 319 of the CrPC was moved for summoning the Applicants as additional accused.
The Trial Court allowed the application prompting the Applicants to file a Petition before the High Court challenging the impugned Order.
The Applicants argued that the Trial Court committed an error of law in exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 of the CrPC in a casual manner, as the facts, circumstances and the evidence on record do not suggest their involvement in the alleged crime.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that the entire case of the prosecution hinged upon circumstantial evidence. “The allegations by complainant in the beginning relating to the involvement of the accused-applicants is vague and was disbelieved by the investigating officer while declaring them innocent,” it remarked.
“The expression Evidence as contained in Section 319 Cr.P.C. would not include a vague statement, and essentially the deposition of prosecution witness has to be tested in its substance,” the Bench explained.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Resultantly, the petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 14th September, 2007 is hereby set aside. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution is dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Rekha & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:918)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Tung Nath Tewari and Ravindra Bajpai
Opposite Party: Government Advocate R.C. Gupta and S. Misra
