caselaws.org

Supreme Court of India
Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 September, 2021Author: K.M. Joseph

Bench: K.M. Joseph, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6381 of 2020)

RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF U. P. & ANR. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

Leave granted.

This is yet another case where summons issued

purporting to invoke power under Section 319 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has brought the newly summoned

person to this Court.

FIR came to be lodged on 27.06.2015 by the second

respondent before us. It is inter alia alleged in the FIR

that her husband(deceased) told her that he is leaving for

work to meet the appellant. There is, in fact, no dispute
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Nidhi Ahuja
that the deceased was the driver of the appellant. In the
Date: 2021.09.18
13:02:03 IST
Reason:
FIR, it is also stated that at 2 p.m., he called and

1
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6381 of 2020)

informed the second respondent-his wife that he is going to

Gola and shall return by evening. It is thereafter her case

that her husband’s phone was switched off and an

unidentified dead body was found. The second respondent

reported that the murder of her husband was committed by his

employer (the appellant before us) with the help of his

friends. The statement came to be recorded from her on

27.06.2015. She also gave an additional statement.

Thereafter, the police investigated the matter and

chargesheet was filed against three persons. Thereafter,

the second respondent deposed:

In her evidence, she has inter alia deposed that, on

23.06.2015, her husband left home at around 7-8 in the

morning telling her that his car owner had called him

immediately. On the same day her husband called her around

2 p.m. on her mobile phone and told her that he was going to

Gola with the appellant and that he will return by evening.

She also deposed that when she called the appellant, he told

her that the car was found near the Government tubewell near

Lagucha and that slippers of her husband were lying in that

car. She has also stated that she and her family are

convinced that her husband was murdered by the appellant

with the help of his friends. She further stated that she

is fully confident that her husband was murdered by the

appellant. This statement was made on 05.08.2017. On the

2
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6381 of 2020)

very same day, an application was filed on behalf of the

prosecution invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Sessions

Judge, Khiri, by order dated 11.09.2018, took the view that

the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be invoked and

ordered to summon the appellant. This order came to be

unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court. It is

thus, the appellant is before us.

We have heard Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, learned counsel

for the appellant, Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, learned counsel for

the first respondent-State and Ms. Sansriti Pathak, learned

counsel for the second respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that

the courts have erred in law in invoking power under Section

319 Cr.P.C. solely based on the deposition as already noted

by us, given by the second respondent. The appellant has

relied on the judgments of this Court rendered in Hardeep

Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 and

Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Others v. State of Gujarat and

Another AIR 2019 SC 734.

While this Court has approved of relying upon

deposition which has not suffered cross examination for the

purpose of invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is relevant to

note the standards which have been fixed by this Court for

invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The statement

of law in this regard is contained in paragraphs 105 and 106

3
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6381 of 2020)

of Hardeep Singh (supra):

105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a
discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be
exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be
exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions
Judge is of the opinion that some other person may
also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where
strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person
from the evidence led before the court that such
power should be exercised and not in a casual and
cavalier manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie
case is to be established from the evidence led
before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil
of cross-examination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The
test that has to be applied is one which is more than
prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing
of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent
that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to
conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the
court should refrain from exercising power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the
purpose of providing if ‘it appears from the evidence
that any person not being the accused has committed
any offence’ is clear from the words “for which such
person could be tried together with the accused.” The
words used are not ‘for which such person could be
convicted’. There is, therefore, no scope for the
court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any
opinion as to the guilt of the accused.”

After hearing learned counsel for the respondents,

who, no doubt, point out that the deposition of the second

respondent as given by her, would suffice in law for the

Court to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., we are

of the view that the matter must be reconsidered.

We say this for the following reason:

4
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6381 of 2020)

The test as laid down by the Constitution Bench of

this Court for invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and

cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence

the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised.

The power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier

manner. The test to be applied, as laid down by this Court,

is one which is more than prima facie case which is applied

at the time of framing of charges.

It will all depend upon the evidence which is tendered

in a given case as to whether there is a strong ground

within the meaning of paragraph 105.

We are of the view that from the facts of this case,

it becomes necessary for us to direct the Sessions Judge,

Khiri, to consider the matter afresh in the light of the

principles which have been clearly enunciated by this Court.

The appeal is accordingly, allowed. The impugned

judgment will stand set aside and we also set aside the

order passed by the learned Sessions Judge issuing summons.

The Sessions Judge, Khiri, will apply his mind in the light

of the principles which have been laid down by the

Constitution Bench.

The Sessions Judge, Khiri, will call this case on

30.09.2021. The parties will be present on the said day.

5
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6381 of 2020)

Thereafter the Court will pass appropriate orders bearing in

mind the principles which have been laid down by this Court

in Hardeep Singh (supra). The appeal is allowed as above.

……………………………………………………………………., J.
[ K.M. JOSEPH ]

……………………………………………………………………., J.
[ PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA ]

New Delhi;
September 13,2021.

6

Comments

Leave a Reply

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.