Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to summon additional accused – Altercation between the appellant-serving in Army and the accused, after which accused armed with a knife along with others armed with lathi and danda, came back – Appellant seriously injured after being stabbed by the accused in the waist and chest, while one of the co-accused had caught hold of the appellant – Two others beat the appellant and one threatened him – Cross case registered against accused and co-accused – Charges were framed against accused – Application u/s.319 by the appellant, for summoning co-accused to face trial – Allowed by the Sessions Judge, however set aside by the High Court – Interference: Held: High Court failed to consider the matter from the proper perspective and arrived at an entirely wrong conclusion – No conclusive finding can be given that the co-accused-respondents were not involved merely on the basis of reports of the Deputy Superintendents of Police – Having regard to the version of the appellant in course of examination-in-chief, the Sessions Judge formed a satisfaction higher than a prima facie satisfaction of the alleged involvement of the respondents and that their complicity in the crime has to be examined and tested on evidence being led at the trial – To ascertain whether the Sessions Judge in allowing the application u/s.319 had acted mechanically or in a manner not authorised by law or in derogation of the law, the High Court was well within its competence to adopt an ‘eyes on’ approach, considering the nature of power conferred on the High Court by the Cr.PC as the revisional court, but regard being had to the facts and circumstances, a ‘hands off’ approach would have been advisable and the correct approach – Conclusion of the Sessions Judge was a plausible one and not an absurd one so as to warrant interference by the High Court – Impugned judgment set aside and that of the Sessions Judge restored – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.34, 307, 323, 324, 506 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25. [Paras 13, 16-19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.