Read Time: 05 minutes
While dealing with the charges framed against the accused person, top court observed that for attracting the offence under Section 149 IPC, one simply has to be a part of an unlawful assembly and any specific individual role or act is not material.
The Supreme Court of India has held that while considering an application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for summoning an accused, the merits of the evidence are not to be appreciated.
"The merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial, by cross examination of the witnesses and scrutiny of the Court. This is not to be done at the stage of Section 319,...", a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and CT Ravikumar has held.
Noting that the entire purpose of criminal trial is to go to the truth of the matter, the bench added,
"Once there is satisfaction of the Court that there is evidence before it that an accused has committed an offence, the court can proceed against such a person. At the stage of summoning an accused, there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court."
Court made these observations while allowing an appeal filed by a complainant challenging the High Court order whereby an order allowing the application made under Section 319 CrPC to summon three additional persons to face trial was set aside.
Top Court held that the trial court was absolutely correct to have summoned the accused based on the evidence of an eye-witness, and the High Court committed a grave error in allowing the revision of the accused.
"Moreover, the High Court did not appreciate the important fact that the charges being faced by the accused were under Sections 458, 460, 323, 285, 302, 148 and 149 of IPC. Thus, one of the charges being Section 149, which is of being a member of an unlawful assembly, for attracting the offence under Section 149 IPC, one simply has to be a part of an unlawful assembly. Any specific individual role or act is not material..", top court has added.
It was further noted that the evidence which was there before the High Court was of an eye-witness who had clearly stated before the Court that a crime has been committed, inter alia, by the revisionist.
In this regard, the division bench has said,
"The Court need not cross-examine this witness. It can stop the trial at that stage itself if such application had been moved under Section 319. The detail examination of the witness and 10 other witnesses is a subject matter of the trial which has to begin afresh."
Case Title: SANDEEP KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Please Login or Register
