While Considering Application U/s. 319 Cr.P.C. Evidence Collected By IO In Investigation Should Be Looked Into Along With Evidence Adduced During Trial: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that while filing of chargesheet against a new set of accused persons and exonerating the original accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. evidence collected by the Investigating Officer (IO) in the investigation should also be looked into along with evidence adduced during trial.
The Court was deciding a criminal revision preferred against the order of the Additional District and Session Judge passed in a case under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by which some persons were summoned to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) together with the accused persons who were already facing trial.
A Single Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra held, “With foregoing submissions at Bar and discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned court below has committed legal error while ignoring all together the course of investigation, the reason behind exoneration of the revisionists and filing of chargesheet against a new set of accused persons on the basis of evidence collected during investigation.”
The Bench said that the main objective of Section 319 of CrPC is that the real culprit should not get away unpunished.
Advocate Hari Prakash Mishra represented the revisionists while AGA Deepak Kapoor represented the State.
Brief Facts -
The informant/defacto complainant had lodged an FIR based on a written report at Police Station with averments that her husband went to a market via motorcycle along with his friend and she also went there. While coming back, when they came near a village, suddenly a car came behind them in which the revisionists/accused were sitting. The said accused stepped out from the car having armed with weapons and shot her husband and his friend.
The Investigating Officer had dropped the names of the 7 accused persons and rather filed a chargesheet against 7 others whose complicity was found in the offence during investigation. Hence, the accused persons filed an instant criminal revision against the order of the Sessions Court as they were summoned to face trial together with the ones who were already facing the trial.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “The learned court below has not discussed the course of investigations, evidence collected during investigation, reasons behind exoneration of named accused persons and introduction of a new set of accused persons during investigation by the Investigating Officer.”
The Court said that as Section 319 CrPC springs out of a legal maxim “judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted”, this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and sprit underlying the enactment of Section 319 CrPC and that it is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit.
“Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Trial Court, and remitted the matter.
Cause Title- Sanju and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:10649)
Appearance:
Revisionist: Advocate Dharmendra Kumar
Opposite Party: Advocates Chandra Prakash Pandey and Dur Vijay Singh
