JUHRU & ORSversusKARIM & ANR.

                         [2023] 2 S.C.R. 519                          519


                         JUHRU & ORS.                                 A
                                v.
                         KARIM & ANR.
                 (Criminal Appeal No.549 of 2023)
                      FEBRUARY 21, 2023                               B
        [SURYA KANT AND J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – Additional
accused – Summoning of –Appeal filed by the father-in-
law(appellant no.1), sister-in-law(appellant no.2), and brother-in-
                                                                      C
law(appellant no.3) of the deceased against the High Court
judgment wherein the High Court summoned them u/s 319 of the
CrPC, 1973 as additional accused – Earlier, respondent no. 1
(brother of the deceased woman) had filed an FIR u/s 304B, 498A,
406, 323 and 34 IPC against the husband of the deceased, the
mother-in-law of the deceased, and the abovementioned appellants      D
– The investigating agency did not find any incriminating material
against the appellants, and a challan was filed only against the
husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased – Thereafter,
respondent no. 1 filed an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. before trial
Court to summon the appellants as additional accused – Trial Court
                                                                      E
dismissed the said application – Respondent no. 1 approached the
High Court – The High Court summoned the appellants to face trial
– Discontented with their summoning, the appellants filed appeal
before the Supreme Court – Held: Power of summoning u/s. 319
Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more
than a prima facie case is sine qua non to summon an additional       F
accused – The procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the
summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be
discouraged and the trial Court must evaluate the evidence against
the persons sought to be summoned – In absence of any credible
evidence, the power u/s.319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked – In
                                                                      G
the instant case, the record reveals that appellant no.1 had asked
respondent no.1 to spend 20 lakhs on marriage – Therefore, High
Court summoning appellant no.1 satisfies the ingredients of s.319
Cr.P.C. – However, no credible evidence to connect the death of
deceased with appellant nos.2 and 3.
                                                                      H
                               519
520            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A           Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
            Held: 1. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of
      the cited decisions that power of summoning under Section 319
      Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more
      than a prima facie case is sine qua non to summon an additional
B     accused. This Court may add that with a view to prevent the
      frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under
      Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity with the binding judicial
      dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that
      ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the
      trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the
C     evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then
      adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry the same
      weightage and value as has been testified against those who are
      already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the
      power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked. [Para
D     17][525-H; 526-A-C]
            Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 :
            2014 (2 ) SCR 1; Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State
            of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289 – relied on.
                             Case Law Reference
E
      (2014) 2 SCR 1                 relied on               Para 13, 15
      (2023) 1 SCC 289               relied on              Para 14, 16
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      No.549 of 2023.
F
            From the Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2020 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.40507 of 2018.
           S. K. Verma, Atul Kumar, Abhimanyu Sharma, Ms. Deepali,
      Janmayjai Verma, Advs. for the Appellants.
G          Deepkaran Dalal, Raunaq Dalal, Ashish Jhamb, Arun Kumar, Dr.
      Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            SURYA KANT, J.

H           Leave Granted.
                 JUHRU & ORS. v. KARIM & ANR.                                  521
                       [SURYA KANT, J.]

       2. The instant Criminal Appeal originates from a judgment dated         A
27.01.2020 whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
(in short ‘High Court’), while setting aside the order dated 12.07.2018
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, has ordered the summoning
of the Appellants under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) as additional accused.                            B
      A. FACTS
        3. Briefly stated the facts are that FIR No. 270 dated 09.07.2017
was registered at Police Station Tauru, District Nuh under Sections 304B,
498A, 406, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’)
on the statement of Karim - Respondent No. 1 to the effect that the            C
marriage of his deceased sister (Rukseena) was solemnised on
04.12.2016 with one Aamir. An Alto car, Rs.3 lakhs in cash, 3 kg of
silver, 30 grams of gold, furniture and other household items were allegedly
given to Aamir and his family members as dowry at the time of marriage.
The family of Aamir comprised of Akhlima (mother), Juhru (father) –            D
Appellant No.1, Sonam (sister) – Appellant No.2 and Rijwan (brother-
in-law) – Appellant No.3. The complainant further alleged that the family
of Aamir was dissatisfied with the dowry and subjected the deceased to
continuous torture and harassment. Respondent No.1 and his family tried
to settle the matter with Aamir and his family but all their efforts proved
futile. Respondent No. 1 was telephonically informed on 09.07.2017 that        E
the deceased had hung herself to death.
       4. The investigating agency did not find any incriminating material
against the Appellants in the course of investigation and Challan was
filed only against the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased,
who are now facing trial.                                                      F

       5. During the trial, Respondent No. 1 stepped into the witness box
as PW-1 on 01.03.2018 and reiterated the allegations levelled against all
the accused persons, including the Appellants. Soon thereafter,
Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 319 Cr.P.C before
the Trial Court to summon the Appellants as additional accused.                G

      6. The Trial Court dismissed the said application observing that
the extraordinary power vested under section 319 Cr.P.C ought to be
exercised only if the evidence adduced on record strongly indicates the
possible involvement of the person(s) aimed to be prosecuted. The Trial
                                                                               H
522             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     Court further opined that it did not appear from the deposition of
      Respondent No. 1 or from other material on record that the persons
      sought to be summoned had committed any offence for which they could
      be tried together with accused Aamir and Akhlima.
              7. The aggrieved Respondent No. 1, approached the High Court
B     under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and vide impugned order dated 27.01.2020
      his petition was allowed and the appellants were summoned to face
      trial. The High Court observed that the FIR as well as the testimony of
      Respondent No. 1 during the trial revealed that the insinuations against
      the Appellants were exactly the same as those attributed to the accused
      already facing trial. Hence, in the absence of any distinguishable features,
C     the Appellants were also liable to be tried along with Aamir and Akhlima.
      The High Court further viewed that there existed sufficient grounds for
      summoning the Appellants as additional accused.
           8. Discontented with their summoning by the High Court, the
      Appellants are before us.
D
            B. CONTENTIONS
             9. Mr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the Appellants, vehemently
      contended that the High Court has committed a grave error of law in not
      appreciating that the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are to be
E     exercised sparingly only if the evidence vividly points out the possible
      involvement of the person(s) proposed to be prosecuted. There is not an
      iota of evidence against the appellants to glean a conclusion of their
      involvement. Further, the fact that the Appellants were found innocent
      during the course of two-fold investigation has not been adequately
      considered by the High Court. There is no evidence to suggest even
F     remotely that the Appellants were cruel to the deceased shortly before
      her death. The allegations are general and vague in nature without
      attributing any specific role to the Appellants.
             10. On the other hand, Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, learned Counsel for
      the Ist Respondent, strongly defended the approach of the High Court
G     and submitted that, given the allegations made in the FIR and the deposition
      of Respondent No.1, the High Court was justified in summoning the
      Appellants, who were actively involved in harassing the deceased for
      not bringing enough dowry and which eventually led to the unfortunate
      death of Rukseena just within 7 months of her marriage.
H
                      JUHRU & ORS. v. KARIM & ANR.                               523
                            [SURYA KANT, J.]

         C. ANALYSIS                                                             A
       11. There is no gainsaid that the alleged offence is grave and
heinous in nature. The long arms of law must find out whether any
person is guilty of abetting or taking away the precious life of a young
girl who soon after her marriage met with such a tragic end. However,
the only issue that falls for our consideration is whether there is sufficient   B
evidence against the Appellants to summon them as additional accused?
         12. Section 319 Cr.P.C. contemplates that:
         “….Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an
         offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not
         being the Accused has committed any offence for which such              C
         person could be tried together with the Accused, the Court
         may proceed against such person for the offence which he
         appears to have committed. … …”
       13. Illuminating the scope of Section 319 Cr.PC, the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab1 laid down              D
that :
         “57. Thus, the application of the provisions of Section 319
         CrPC, at the stage of inquiry is to be understood in its correct
         perspective. The power under Section 319 CrPC can be
         exercised only on the basis of the evidence adduced before              E
         the court during a trial. So far as its application during the
         course of inquiry is concerned, it remains limited as referred
         to herein above, adding a person as an accused, whose name
         has been mentioned in Column 2 of the charge-sheet or any
         other person who might be an accomplice.”                               F
                                    x-x-x-x-x-
         “105. Power under Section 319 CrPC 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            G
         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

1
    (2014) 3 SCC 92
                                                                                 H
524                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A           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
B           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
C           exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319
            CrPC 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
D           “for which such person could be convicted”. There is,
            therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319
            CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.”
            14. This Court has very recently, in Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs.
      The State of Punjab2, succinctlyexplained the powers bestowed on the
      Court under section 319 Cr.P.C. and ruled that:
E
            “15. At the outset, having noted the provision, it is amply clear
            that the power bestowed on the Court is to the effect that in
            the course of an inquiry into, or trial of an offence, based on
            the evidence tendered before the Court, if it appears to the
            Court that such evidence points to any person other than the
F           accused who are being tried before the Court to have
            committed any offence and such accused has been excluded
            in the charge sheet or in the process of trial till such time
            could still be summoned and tried together with the accused
            for the offence which appears to have been committed by such
            persons summoned as additional accused.”
G
            15. In Hardeep Singh (Supra), it has been eloquently held that
      the word “evidence” in Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be broadly understood
      and thus materials which have come before the Court in course of enquiry
      can be used for : -
      2
          (2023) 1 SCC 289
H
                 JUHRU & ORS. v. KARIM & ANR.                                     525
                       [SURYA KANT, J.]

      (i)     corroboration of evidence recorded by Court after                   A
              commencement of trial;
      (ii)    for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; and
      (iii)   also to add an accused whose name is shown in column
              no.2 of the chargesheet.
                                                                                  B
       It was further explained that statement made in examination-in
chief also constitutes “evidence” and the Court while exercising power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. post commencement of trial, need not wait
for evidence against person proposed to be summoned, to be tested by
cross-examination.
                                                                                  C
       16. In Sukhpal Singh Khaira (Supra), the Constitution Bench
refreshed the guidelines that the competent court must follow while
exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It was ruled that :-
      (i)     if the competent court finds evidence or if application under
              Section 319 Cr.P.C. is filed, regarding involvement of any          D
              other person in committing the offence based on evidence
              “recorded at any stage in the trial” before passing of the
              order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the trial at that
              stage and the Court shall proceed to decide the fate of the
              application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.;
                                                                                  E
      (ii)    if the Court decides to summon an accused under Section
              319 Cr.P.C., such summoning order shall be passed before
              proceeding further with the trial in the main case and
              depending upon the stage at which the order is passed, the
              Trial Court shall apply its mind to the fact as to whether
              such summoned accused is to be tried along with other               F
              accused or separately; and
      (iii)   if the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not invoked or
              exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a
              split-up case, such power can be invoked or exercised only
              if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement    G
              of the additional accused to be summoned in the spilt-up
              (bifurcated trial).
      17. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited
decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to
be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie               H
526             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     case is sine quo non to summon an additional accused. We may hasten
      to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to
      summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity
      with the binding judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural
      safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very
      threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate
B
      the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge
      whether such material is, more or less, carry the same weightage and
      value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In
      the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319
      Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked.
C            18. Adverting to the case in hand, the allegations against the
      Appellants are that they too played an active role in the commission of
      the alleged offence.
             19. The record reveals that after the application under section
      319 Cr.P.C was dismissed by the Trial Court, Respondent No.1 was
D     called on 06.12.2018 for further examination-in-chief as PW-1. His
      deposition distinctively unravels that at the time of marriage, Appellant
      No.1 – Juhru (father-in-law) had asked Respondent No.1 to spend a
      sum of Rs. 20 lacs on the marriage of Aamir and the deceased, to which
      Respondent No.1 had agreed. Appellant No.1 and his wife Akhlima
E     (mother-in-law) were living under the same roof as his son Aamir
      (husband) and he would have been privy to all the alleged occurrences
      of torture, harassment or demand for more dowry. Viewed from this
      angle, it appears that the Ist appellant might have to sink or swim with
      his son and wife. The High Court order, to the extent of summoning
      Appellant No. 1, therefore, satisfies the ingredients of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
F     and may not warrant any interference by this Court.
             20. As regard to Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., Sonam (sister-in-
      law), and Rijwan (brother-in-law) of the deceased, it appears to us that
      despite both of them being named in the FIR and in the examination-in-
      chief of Respondent No.1, there is no credible evidence to connect them
G     with the unnatural death of Rukseena. There is no cogent material that
      Appellant No. 2, even after her marriage with Appellant No. 3, continued
      to reside in her parents’ house or that they used to inter-meddle in the
      day to day marital life of the deceased and Aamir. In the absence of any
      authentic evidence to bring them in close proximity of the reported crime,
H
                 JUHRU & ORS. v. KARIM & ANR.                                   527
                       [SURYA KANT, J.]

it would be unjustified to call upon Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 to face trial as    A
additional accused in this case.
       D. CONCLUSION :
       21. In light of above discussion, we are of the considered view
that while summoning of Appellant No. 1 sustains, but that of Appellant
Nos. 2 and 3 will be farfetched and they cannot be subjected to trial on        B
the basis of mere strong suspicion. The High Court order under challenge
is accordingly set aside qua Appellant Nos. 2 and 3.
       22. Having held that Appellant No.1 has been rightly summoned
and is liable to be tried along with his son and wife, the next question that
requires consideration is as to the manner in which the trial will proceed      C
hitherto.
       23. The information available on record suggests that the trial is
at the stage of defence evidence. The guidelines that the Trial Court
must follow, while commencing the trial against Appellant No.1 have
been extensively iterated by the Constitution Bench in Sukhpal Singh
Khaira (Supra), in the following terms:                                         D
       “41 (III). What are the guidelines that the competent court
       must follow while exercising power under Section 319 CrPC?
       41.1 If the competent court finds evidence or if application
               under Section 319 of CrPC is filed regarding
               involvement of any other person in committing the                E
               offence based on evidence recorded at any stage in the
               trial before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence,
               it shall pause the trial at that stage.
       41.2 The Court shall thereupon first decide the need or
               otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass              F
               orders thereon.
       41.3 If the decision of the court is to exercise the power under
               Section 319 of CrPC and summon the accused, such
               summoning order shall be passed before proceeding
               further with the trial in the main case.                         G
       41.4 If the summoning order of additional accused is passed,
               depending on the stage at which it is passed, the Court
               shall also apply its mind to the fact as to whether such
               summoned accused is to be tried along with the other
               accused or separately.
                                                                                H
528              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A            41.5 If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be
                  commenced only after securing the presence of the
                  summoned accused.
             41.6 If the decision is that the summoned accused can be
                  tried separately, on such order being made, there will
B                 be no impediment for the Court to continue and conclude
                  the trial against the accused who were being proceeded
                  with.”
            24. The Trial Court shall, thus, follow the cited dictum and proceed
      against Appellant No. 1 in accordance with law.
C           25. For the reasons aforestated but without expressing any views
      on merits, we partly allow this appeal and modify the impugned order of
      the High Court dated 27.01.2020 in above terms.
             26. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

D
      Ankit Gyan                                             Appeal partly allowed.
      (Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)




E




F




G




H