Power under Section 319, Cr.PC: “Evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime,” says Supreme Court

The vacation bench of the Supreme Court gave judgment in the Jitendra Nath Mishra vs. State of UP & Anr. case on June 2, 2023. The bench stated that “what is essential for exercise of the power under Section 319, Cr.PC is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned.” The vacation bench of the SC also stated that “However, the court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power conferred by Section 319, Cr.PC, must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned; its satisfaction preceding the order thereunder must be more than prima facie as framed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to a conviction.” The vacation bench of the SC that heard the matter consists of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Dipankar Datta. 

In this case, a special leave appeal was made against an order delivered by the Allahabad High Court on June 1, 2022. The impugned order by the High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Cates and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Moreover, under challenge in the appeal was a summoning order passed by the relevant Special Court on October 16, 2021, under the mentioned Act, in the exercise of a power conferred by Section 319, Cr. PC. It was determined that there were material contradictions in the versions of both prosecution witnesses. One of the witnesses said that Dharmendra, his brother, and an unknown person were traveling in a car when they stopped him and his family members where after the alleged incident of assault and abuse took place. The second witness deposed that the accused persons arrived at the place of occurrence riding two motorcycles. Through this, it was evident that the depositions of the witnesses were unreliable and untrustworthy. 

Supreme Court was of the view that any expression dealing with each and every point urged on behalf of the appellant could result in prejudgment; and thereby hinder a fair trial hence, adopting a cautious approach. The bench was satisfied, on facts and in the circumstances, that the Special Court formed the requisite satisfaction prior to summoning the appellant to face trial with Dharmendra. The SC further added, “In so far as the points regarding delay in registration of the FIR, material contradiction in the versions of the complainant and his wife, absence of any public witness as well as the circumstances that the complainant and his wife were known to the appellant since 2015 are concerned, the same are left open to be urged by the appellant in course of the proceedings before the Special Court.” It added “the Special Court is encouraged to expedite the trial. But, in the process, it shall proceed uninfluenced by reason of its order under Section 319, Cr.PC having been upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court.” The bench also stated that “The points raised on behalf of the appellant, if raised before it as well as other points, if any, shall be given the consideration the same deserve.” The appeal was then dismissed by the vacation bench of the Supreme Court.