Sandeep Kumar vs The State of Haryana & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

28 July 2023

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

C.T. Ravikumar, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Citation

[2023] 9 S.C.R. 1210 : 2023 INSC 654

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – The appellantinformant (PW-9) moved an application u/s. 319 before the Trial Court to summon three additional accused persons, R, K and P, who were named in FIR but not in the charge-sheet and they were identified by the appellant as assailants in his examination-in-chief during trial – The trial Court allowed the application and summoned the three accused persons – However, the High Court set aside the said order in revision – The revision was allowed for the reasons that R was found innocent during investigation and that he never used the weapon and had actually fled from the spot – On appeal, held: Observations of the High Court were factually incorrect as can be seen from the examination-in-chief of PW-9 that the revisionist had fled the scene only after the commission of the crime by an “unlawful assembly” – For attracting the offence u/s. 149 IPC, one simply has to be a part of an unlawful assembly, any specific individual role or act is not material – High Court committed grave error – The reasoning given by the High Court, cannot be accepted at the stage of consideration of application u/s 319 Cr.PC – The merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial and not at the stage of s. 319 – Order of High Court set aside – Appeal allowed – Penal Code,1860 – ss. 458, 460, 323, 302, 148,

149 and 285 – Arms Act, 1959 – s. 25.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – At the stage of summoning an accused, there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court – In the instant case, the evidence which was there before the Court was of an eye witness who has clearly stated before the Court that a crime has been committed, inter alia, by the revisionist – The Court need not cross-examine this witness – It can stop the trial at that stage itself if such application had been moved u/s.

319. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 : [2004] SCR 913 – relied on.

Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 632; Yunis alias Kariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 539 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. Leave granted. 2. Heard Shri Ram Naresh Yadav learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant, Shri Vishal Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General for the State/Respondent No.1 and Shri Shreeyash U. Lalit learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. The appellant before this Court was the informant in the case and was a prosecution witness (PW-9), in Sessions Trial No.8/2018, which is being held before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Haryana, under Sections 458, 460, 323, 302, 148, 149 and 285 of IPC, 1860 read with Section 25 of Arms

View Subscription Plans →