Introduction
Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter as Crpc) is a special provision of the Code. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) by the bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan clarified the law on Section 319 of the Code.
Section 319 of the Crpc reads as:
- Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offense, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offense for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offense which he appears to have committed.
- Where such person is not attending the court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
- Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offense which he appears to have committed.
- Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard;
Subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offense upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.
The present article aims to present the readers with the law as clarified in Devendra Kumar Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) by the Supreme Court.
Facts of the case
- The trial court conducted a trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- When the trial was conducted, on the basis of evidence, the trial court convicted some of the accused persons and acquitted others.
- After the conviction, the trial judge was of the opinion that the appellant was also required to be tried.
- On 21st March, 2012, first the trial court, before lunch, passed an order to convict the accused persons and also passed an order to acquit the other. Post-lunch, the trial court passed a sentence for the convicted persons and also ordered under Section 319 Crpc to summon the appellant, namely, Devender Pal.
- The appellant filed an appeal to the High Court, arguing that such summoning under Section 319 Crpc is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Because after an order of acquittal of the co-accused, this power can’t be exercised.
- The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant and justified the order of the trial court of summoning the accused in its exercise of power under Section 319 of the Crpc.
- Accordingly, an appeal was against the order of the High Court under the Supreme Court.
Arguments from the side of the appellant
The appellant presented the following arguments:
The appellant relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2023), wherein the same question was referred to a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. The issue was whether the trial court is empowered to summon the co-accused after conviction in exercise of its power under Section 319 Crpc.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that
- The power under Section 319 Crpc has to be exercised before the order of conviction or acquittal made by the Court.
- Hence, the order of summons has to be passed before the conclusion of trial. If, after the final decision of the case, the summoning order is passed, it shall be unsustainable in the eyes of law.
- For using power under Section 319 Crpc, some conditions have to be fulfilled. Firstly, the trial court must be satisfied there is involvement of some other person in the commission of the offense either on its motion or on the basis of application. On such satisfaction, it may pause the trial and may decide whether there is a need to proceed with the trial.
- If the Court is of the opinion that there is a need to proceed with the summoning of the accused, then it shall do so before proceeding further with the trial.
- The court then has to decide, depending on the stage in which the accused is summoned, whether the accused has to be tried separately or together with other accused persons. If the Court decides to proceed separately, then no effect shall be caused on the trial that was pending, and the Court may continue with that. If the court decides that the trial shall run jointly, then a fresh trial shall not run unless the attendance of the accused is secured.
- The order of summoning can’t be passed after the order of acquittal or conviction.
Arguments from the respondent’s side
The respondents argued that the order of summons of the accused or the appellant was passed on the same day and therefore there was legal exercise of power.
Observation made by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court held that
- There is no dispute as to the fact that on March 21, 2012, the order of conviction with respect to some of the accused persons and the order of acquittal with respect to others was passed by the trial court.
- The order of summoning of the accused was passed in the exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code after the acquittal or conviction and was accordingly bad in law. The issue has already been settled in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2023) that such power must be exercised during the trial at any stage. It can’t be tried once the sentence is passed.
- The decision in Sukhpal was given by the Constitutional bench, and we are bound by the decision in Sukhpal being two-judged bench.
- Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the order passed by the trial court on 21st March, 2012, and also the judgment on appeal in the high court on 25th August, 2021, is set aside.
Conclusion
The decision in the case of Devendra Kumar Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) is significant in many aspects. Firstly, the case has reaffirmed the decision of the Sukhpal case and also clarified the law on Section 319 of the Code, which is an important provision of the Crpc.
Follow the following links for more recent updates:
https://www.jyotijudiciary.com/ https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=V-ncXHylL3sGBedB