Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court earlier this month set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order quashing the order to summon two persons as accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case of attempt to murder of a soldier of the Indian Army.

The apex court said that to ascertain whether the sessions court had acted mechanically or in a manner not authorised by law, the high court should have adopted 'eyes on' approach. However, given the facts and circumstances, a ‘hands off’ approach would have been more appropriate and correct. 

"We have no hesitation to hold that the conclusion of the Sessions Judge was a plausible conclusion and not an absurd one so as to warrant interference by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction," a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said.  

Relying upon Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab (2014) and Jitendra Nath Mishra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2023), the bench pointed out it had been held that the court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power conferred by Section 319 CrPC, must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned; its satisfaction preceding the order thereunder must be more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

The court was dealing with a special leave petition filed by one Satbir Singh against the high court's order of March 7, 2024, which set aside Karnal sessions court's order of September 13, 2021, allowing the application filed under Section 319 CrPC by the appellant, seeking to summon Rajesh Kumar, Sagar @ Bittoo, Niraj and Ankit as additional accused for facing trial along with the principal accused, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof as well as Section 25 of the Arms Act.      

The court examined the matter qua Rajesh and Niraj only. 

In his complaint, the appellant disclosed that he was serving in the Indian Army and had come to his village on leave. On February 09, 2020, at about 2.30 p.m., while playing volleyball, an altercation had taken place with Mukesh who was playing for the opposite team. Mukesh started slapping the appellant. Team members pacified and separated them. 

However, Mukesh left threatening that the appellant would be taught a lesson. After 15 minutes, Mukesh came armed with a knife, accompanied by Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit armed with lathi, danda, etc. Neeraj caught hold of the appellant and Mukesh gave a knife blow to the waist of the appellant followed by another knife blow near his heart, which penetrated up to the lungs.

In the case, the court noted Neeraj happened to be the sibling of Mukesh. The initial statement of the appellant referred to the fact that Neeraj had held him facilitating stabbing by Mukesh, who gave a knife blow in the waist followed by another blow near his heart which penetrated up to his lungs. Insofar as Rajesh was concerned, it was alleged that he had threatened the appellant.

"Although, the Sessions Judge formed the requisite satisfaction bearing in mind the decision in Hardeep Singh and held that the tests laid down therein were squarely met, reading the impugned order in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court failed to consider the matter from the proper perspective and arrived at an entirely wrong conclusion," the bench said.

The counsel for the proposed accused attempted to impress upon the court that the involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj was not found in the several reports of the Deputy Superintendents of Police, attached to Karnal district, and such reports should be given credence.

The court opined that no conclusive finding can be given that Rajesh and Neeraj were not involved merely on the basis of such reports. 

Having regard to the version of the appellant in course of examination-in-chief, the sessions judge formed a satisfaction higher than a prima facie satisfaction of the alleged involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj and that their complicity in the crime had to be examined and tested on evidence being led at the trial, it said. 

"To ascertain whether the Sessions Judge in allowing the application under Section 319, CrPC had acted mechanically or in a manner not authorised by law or in derogation of the law declared in Hardeep Singh, the High Court was well within its competence to adopt an ‘eyes on’ approach, considering the nature of power conferred on the High Court by the CrPC as the revisional court, but regard being had to the facts and circumstances, a ‘hands off’ approach would have been advisable and the correct approach," the court said.        

The court restored the sessions court's order with a request to take the trial to its logical conclusion, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

Case Title: Satbir Singh Vs Rajesh Kumar And Others