The High Court emphasizes the discretionary nature of Section 319 CrPC and criticizes advocates' repeated non-appearance.
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has upheld the decision of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shravasti, rejecting an application to summon an additional accused in a criminal case under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The case, involving allegations of assault and abuse, was filed by Smt. Chhotka against Ram Suresh Yadav and his son Ankit Yadav, with the trial court having previously discharged Ankit Yadav due to insufficient evidence.
The appellant, Smt. Chhotka, argued that both individuals were involved in the incident, as stated in her FIR, her statement under Section 161 CrPC, and her examination-in-chief. However, the trial court found no cogent evidence implicating Ankit Yadav, noting that key witness testimonies did not support his involvement.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, only when compelling evidence suggests the involvement of individuals not initially charged. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, underscoring that evidence must be stronger than mere probability but less than that required for conviction.
Additionally, the High Court criticized the conduct of the appellant's counsel for repeated non-appearance, warning against the misuse of adjournments which leads to increased pendency and delays in the judicial process.
The judgment reinforces the principle that the judiciary must be cautious in summoning additional accused, ensuring that the decision is grounded in strong evidence, thereby safeguarding the rights of individuals against whom charges are sought to be framed.
Bottom line:-
Power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only in cases with strong and cogent evidence against the person sought to be added as an accused.
Statutory provision(s): Section 319 CrPC, Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Smt. Chhotka v. State Of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2947290
