11. There is no gainsaid that the alleged offence is grave and heinous in nature. The long arms of law must find out whether any person is guilty of abetting or taking away the precious life of a young girl who soon after her marriage met with such a tragic end. However, the only issue that falls for our consideration is whether there is sufficient evidence against the Appellants to summon them as additional accused?
12. Section 319 Cr.P.C. contemplates that:
“….Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the Accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the Accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. … …”
[After quoting Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92]; Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The State of Punjab [(2023) 1 SCC 289]; judgments Apex Court has held as follows:}
17. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine quo non to summon an additional accused. We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked.
Findings
21. In light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that while summoning of Appellant No. 1 sustains, but that of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 will be farfetched and they cannot be subjected to trial on the basis of mere strong suspicion. The High Court order under challenge is accordingly set aside qua Appellant Nos. 2 and 3.
Party
Juhru & Ors.vs. Karim & Anr. – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.549 OF 2023 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1658 of 2020] – 21.02.2023.
Juhru vs. Karim 5920_2020_9_1501_42078_Judgement_21-Feb-2023
