In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the rejection of a plea under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to summon three additional persons in an assault case. The applicant had argued that statements of several witnesses, including the injured and eye-witnesses, directly implicated those persons, but the trial court declined to exercise the power to proceed against them. When the matter was taken on revision, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, reasoning that the evidence did not sufficiently establish involvement of the proposed accused, particularly because the injured party himself had not named them.
The facts before the court revealed that an FIR had been registered for unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint, and voluntarily causing hurt against two named accused. During the trial, statements were recorded from the injured person, the complainant, and other witnesses. Some of the witnesses alleged active participation by the three persons sought to be summoned, but in his own testimony, the injured did not identify them. The petitioner filed an application under Section 319, CrPC, to have those persons impleaded as additional accused. The trial court rejected that application on the ground that the injured’s silence regarding their involvement diminished the weight of other testimonial references.
On the revision petition, the High Court carefully examined the record and noted that the power under Section 319 is discretionary and extraordinary. The High Court emphasized that such power should be invoked sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence connects the additional persons to the offence. Because the injured person’s statement did not mention the respondents, the court considered that the statements of other witnesses could not displace that omission in the absence of corroboration. The court held that the discretionary decision by the trial court did not suffer from arbitrariness or perversity, and therefore did not warrant interference.
The High Court also observed that the charge-sheet had been framed against the two originally accused persons based on the injured’s statement, and that the proposed respondents were never named in that statement. Under the circumstances, summoning them merely based on witness statements was not justified, especially as the injured’s silence suggested lack of direct implicatory evidence. The court declined to substitute its view for the trial court’s considered exercise of discretion, reaffirming the principle that interference is proper only where the trial court’s decision is found to be capricious or legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and sustained the order rejecting the Section 319 application.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.