Introduction
Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code accords responsibility upon the court to take appropriate steps with caution. It delves upon the power of the court to proceed against other person appearing to be guilty of the offence. The spirit underlying the enactment of the said section is there in the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur which literally means that the judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted.
The Supreme Court in a recent case of Manjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana has delivered a judgement explaining the gamut of the powers of the Court under Section 319 CrPC (Section) to ensure that the guilty does not go away from the clutches of law. The bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah delivered a judgement wherein an appeal had arisen out of a case of murder against the decision of the Trial Court that had dismissed the application of the appellant under the Section and refused to summon few people to face the trial and then the High Court had further upheld the judgement of the Trial Court. The bench, in the instant case, allowed the appeal and summarized the principles explaining the ambit of the Section.
Analysis by the Court
The Supreme Court has outlined the scope of the Section wherein reliance has been placed in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab[1], the court has held that to summon the person who is not charge sheeted, the effort is that the real perpetrator of the offence is punished which is part and parcel of the principle of fair trial and this empowerment of the court is essential to ensure the proper working of the criminal administration of justice.
The law is codified and modified by the legislature to indicate as to how the courts should proceed to find out the truth so that the person who is guilty are brought to book under the law and the innocent is not punished.[2]
Section 319[3] is an enabling provision which empowers the court for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial and the court can exercise such power only after the trial proceeds and commences with the recording of the evidence. Further, only such evidence is taken into account which is taken on the basis of material collected during the investigation.
The power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised at any stage after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Sections 207/208 CrPC, committal, etc. which is only a pre-trial stage intended to put the process into motion.
The Court is not required and/or justified to appreciate the deposition/evidence of the prosecution witnesses on merits which is required to be done during the trial.[4]
Reliance has also been placed in the case Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq[5], wherein the power under the section can be exercised if the Magistrate/court is convinced on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief and can proceed against such other person(s) or at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief, where the court need not has to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination.
In a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case as well, the Court is still not powerless by virtue of the Section[6]. Even the person named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet can be summoned to face the trial, provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused.[7]
Reliance of the court has also been placed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh[8], Abdul Sayeed vs. State of MP[9], State of MP vs. Mansingh[10] where in the evidence which is given by an injured eye witness has greater evidential value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly by the court.
Conclusion
At the outset, it can be seen through the said judgement that there is no straight jacket formula applied by the court to form an opinion and exercise their power, hence, A law of procedure, however perfect, will fail in its object unless the person who administer it, is, the man of ability. Simultaneously, if the judges are mindful and fearless while administering justice, without a doubt the problems and disputes of today will be solved to the satisfaction of the society at large.
The power given to the Court is an extraordinary and discretionary power which should be exercised by the Court sparingly.[11] The courts should be cautious and then give the decision based on cogent reasons and not merely in a casual and cavalier manner.
The edifice of Indian criminal justice administration system is based on Article 20 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, where in, a protective umbrella has been provided, by making provisions, to ensure a fair trial for the smooth administration of justice. Ergo, constructive interpretation should be adopted that will advance the cause of justice and does not dilute the object of the statute.
Sagun Srivastava is an Associate with GSL Chambers. Tanya Bajaj is in 3rd year of B.A.LL.B UPES, Dehradun and an Intern at GSL Chambers.
[1] (2014) 3 SCC 92.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Criminal Procedure Code,1973.
[4] Sukhpal Sing Khaira vs. State of Punjab (2019) 6 SCC 638.
[5] (2007) 14 SCC 544.
[6] Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2019) 6 SCC 368.
[7] Ibid.
[8] (2011) 4 SCC 324.
[9] (2010) 10 SCC 259.
[10] (2003) 10 SCC 414.
[11] Supra at 1.
