Legal Dispute Over Summoning Additional Accused: Shiv Prakash Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

The case of Shiv Prakash Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh revolves around the question of whether an additional accused could be summoned under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The case originated from a violent altercation that resulted in the death of one person and serious injuries to another. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the second respondent, Subhash Chandra Shukla, could be summoned as an accused despite contradictions in witness statements and findings from the investigation.

The case was initiated based on a complaint filed by Shiv Prakash Mishra (PW-1) regarding an incident that took place on September 6, 2013. According to the complaint, an unlawful assembly was formed by five individuals, including the second respondent, who allegedly assaulted and killed the complainant’s brother, Sangam Lal Mishra. However, during the investigation, the police found that the second respondent was elsewhere at the time of the crime, leading to the exclusion of his name from the charge sheet.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The complainant, represented by his legal counsel, argued that the police had wrongly excluded the second respondent from the charge sheet despite clear evidence. The petitioner contended:

“The complainant has clearly named all the five accused persons, and the name of the second respondent is explicitly mentioned in the FIR. Despite there being a positive direct version of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the attack by the respondent, the Investigating Officer expunged his name from the charge sheet.”

The petitioner further argued that:

• The FIR had named the second respondent as one of the accused.
• Three prosecution witnesses provided direct testimony linking him to the crime.
• There was no reason to believe that he was absent from the crime scene at the time of the incident.

Arguments of the Respondent

The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by legal counsel, opposed the petition, arguing:

“The name of the second respondent was dropped from the charge sheet after an extensive investigation. Witnesses confirmed that the second respondent was at his workplace at the time of the crime, and there was no credible evidence implicating him.”

The state further contended:

• The Investigating Officer examined several witnesses, all of whom confirmed that the second respondent was not present at the crime scene.
• The second respondent was working as a Junior Engineer at the time, and multiple colleagues testified to his presence at his workplace.
• Under Section 319 CrPC, summoning an additional accused requires stronger evidence than mere probability.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court, with Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna presiding, dismissed the appeal, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to summon the second respondent as an accused. The Court observed:

“The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where strong and cogent evidence exists. It is not to be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner.”

The Court held that:

• Contradictions in witness statements created doubt about the second respondent’s involvement.
• The trial court and High Court were justified in concluding that there was no strong evidence against the second respondent.
• The complainant had not filed a protest petition when the charge sheet was submitted, weakening his case.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Courts must exercise caution when summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
• Investigative findings play a crucial role in determining whether an individual should face trial.
• Contradictions in witness statements can significantly weaken the case for summoning additional accused.

This judgment reinforces the principle that summoning an additional accused requires substantial evidence beyond mere allegations in an FIR.

Petitioner Name: Shiv Prakash Mishra.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 23-07-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shiv Prakash Mishra vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 23-07-2019.pdf