Court Rules Lack of Cogent Evidence in Summoning Vegraj Singh and Daulat under Section 319 CrPC
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has set aside a summoning order issued against Vegraj Singh and Daulat, accused under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The order, originally passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) in Bareilly, was quashed due to insufficient evidence pointing towards their complicity.
The case stemmed from allegations involving the main accused, Himmat Singh, under Sections 376(2)(n), 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(2)(5A), 3(2)(r), and 3(2)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Initially, the charge-sheet was filed solely against Himmat Singh, with the Investigating Officer finding no incriminating evidence against Vegraj and Daulat, who are Himmat’s father and brother, respectively.
The appellants were later summoned under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) based on witness statements, particularly that of the victim identified as PW-1, who alleged caste-related abuses. However, the court found that the mere use of the caste-related term "Chamar" did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act without evidence of intent to insult or intimidate on caste grounds.
Justice Santosh Rai, presiding over the appeal, emphasized that the extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence beyond a prima facie case. The court criticized the trial court for exercising this power in a "casual and cavalier manner" without substantial evidence.
The judgment reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing the need for a higher threshold of evidence for summoning additional accused than what is required for framing charges.
This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that the powers under Section 319 CrPC are exercised judiciously and only when the evidence unmistakably points to the involvement of the accused. The court also highlighted the importance of the SC/ST Act in protecting marginalized communities but clarified that its provisions must be invoked with due regard to the evidentiary standards required by law.
Bottom Line :
Summoning under Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence that goes beyond mere prima facie suspicion and should not be exercised in a casual or cavalier manner.
Statutory provision(s): Section 319 CrPC, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, Sections 504, 506 IPC
Vegraj Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2963304
