The Division-Judge bench of Justice Jitendra Nath Mishra and Justice Dipankar Datta observed that the involvement of a person, who is not mentioned in the FIR as an accused should be in the commission of a crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt at the stage of a charge being framed to be tried along with person mentioned as an accused in the FIR.
Brief Facts:
An FIR was registered under Sections 419, 420, 323, 406 and 506 of the IPC against the accused, his brother and an unknown person of having assaulted and abused the complainant and his wife. The Special Court summoned the appellant for trial along with the accused even though his name was not explicitly mentioned in the FIR. This was challenged by the appellant before the High Court, who dismissed the appeal leading to this present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the FIR in question was grossly delayed and no cogent explanation was provided for such belated lodging of the FIR and this was an indicator that the contents of the FIR were false. The material contradictions in the witnesses' versions were brought to the court's attention to establish that they were unreliable and untrustworthy. It was also contended that it was a case of false implication as there were no public witnesses who could support the prosecution’s version of the assault having taken place in a public place. The counsel further argued that the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC by the Special Court was arbitrary and there was an error in law as well as facts on the part of the High Court by not interfering with such order of appellate jurisdiction.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the decision of the court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab to contend that the law relating to summoning a person for being tried along with an accused was no longer res integra and the Special Court duly took into consideration the oral evidence under Section 319 CrPC and thus the order does not suffer from illegality. It was also stated by the counsel that the order of the High Court which affirmed the summoning order of the Special Court does not call for any interference.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that for exercising power under Section 319 of CrPC, it is essential for the evidence on record to show the involvement of a person, who is not mentioned as an accused in the FIR in the commission of the crime and the said person should then face trial together with the person accused in the FIR.
The court further stated that in the present case, even though the name of the appellant was not mentioned in the FIR, the case is not such where there is a complete absence of any reference to his involvement.
The court concluded that the Special Court formed the requisite satisfaction before summoning the appellant to face trial with the accused.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the impugned order of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State Of U.P. and Anr.
Coram: Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Pankaj Mittal
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2022
Advocates for the Applicant: Mr Girijesh Pandey, Ms Alpana Pandey, Mr Ajay Kumar Tiwari and Mr Ramjee Pandey, AOR.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Ankur Prakash, AOR
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
