“The Supreme Court has instructed the Trial Court to strictly adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Constitution Bench in the Sukhpal Singh Khaira case when summoning the appellant as an additional accused.”
Juhru v. Karim, 2023 SCC , judgment dated 21-02-2023
“The Supreme Court recently heard a Criminal Appeal that challenged the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had summoned the appellants as additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Division Bench of Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. modified the High Court’s judgment, sustaining the summoning of the appellant residing in the same house in a case of dowry death, but setting aside the same for other appellants due to insufficient evidence of interference in the affairs of the deceased.”
The case in question relates to the death of a woman within 7 months of her marriage, for which her husband and mother-in-law are facing trial under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The investigating agency did not find any evidence against other family members, including the father-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law. The Trial Court had dismissed the respondent’s application for summoning the other family members as additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order and ordered the summoning of all family members as additional accused.
The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the gravity of the alleged offense, considered whether there was sufficient evidence against the family members for summoning them as additional accused. It referred to the Constitution Bench’s decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab for the correct understanding and application of Section 319 of CrPC. The Court held that the power of summoning under Section 319 of CrPC should not be exercised routinely and should be exclusively exercised when strong and cogent evidence is available.
The Court found that the father-in-law had been rightly summoned as there was evidence of his demand for Rs 20 lakhs and his living under the same roof as the two accused. However, there was no credible evidence connecting the sister-in-law and brother-in-law with the deceased’s unnatural death, and it was unjust to involve them in the trial as additional accused. The Court sustained the summoning of the father-in-law and set aside the High Court’s order with respect to the other family members.
The Court directed the Trial Court to follow the guidelines extensively iterated in Sukhpal Singh Khaira for summoning additional accused under Section 319 of CrPC. The guidelines include pausing the trial, passing an order for summoning, trying the summoned accused separately or along with other accused, and commencing a fresh trial only after securing the presence of the summoned accused.
