Supreme Court Clarifies Section 319 CrPC: No Prior Hearing Needed Before Summoning Additional Accused

The case of Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. revolves around the invocation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers courts to summon additional accused based on evidence that emerges during a trial. The Supreme Court examined whether a person summoned under Section 319 CrPC is entitled to a prior hearing before being added as an accused.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR filed on June 9, 2018, at Hathras Junction Police Station, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant alleged that the accused persons, including the appellants, attacked his house, hurled abuses, and fired shots, leading to the injuries of the complainant and the deaths of his two brothers. The FIR was registered under:

Section 147 (Rioting)
Section 148 (Rioting with a deadly weapon)
Section 149 (Unlawful assembly with a common objective)
Section 302 (Murder)
Section 452 (House trespass with intent to harm)
Section 307 (Attempt to murder)
Section 504 (Intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The charge sheet filed in the case did not initially include the names of the appellants. However, the complainant later filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellants as additional accused based on new evidence.

Legal Journey of the Case

On September 23, 2022, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hathras, allowed the application and summoned the appellants to join the trial. The appellants challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 4235 of 2022, arguing that they were not given an opportunity to be heard before being summoned. On January 3, 2023, the High Court dismissed their revision petition and upheld the trial court’s decision.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s ruling, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Key Arguments Presented

Arguments by the Appellants

The appellants, represented by Senior Counsel S. Nagamuthu, made the following arguments:

Right to a Prior Hearing: They argued that before being added as accused under Section 319 CrPC, a person should be given an opportunity to present their case.
Reliance on Jogendra Yadav Case: They cited Jogendra Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(2015) 9 SCC 244], where the Supreme Court had observed that an accused added under Section 319 CrPC is often heard before being added to the trial.
Reference to Natural Justice: They contended that principles of natural justice require that any person being implicated in a trial should be allowed to contest their inclusion.
Absence in the Final Report: They pointed out that their names were not included in the charge sheet after investigation, and the complainant had not filed a protest petition.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh and the complainant, countered the appellants’ arguments by stating:

No Statutory Requirement for Prior Hearing: Section 319 CrPC does not explicitly require a prior hearing before summoning an accused.
Trial Integrity: Requiring a prior hearing would lead to unnecessary delays and could disrupt the trial process.
Protection Under Trial: The summoned accused would still have ample opportunity to present their defense during the trial, including cross-examining witnesses and leading evidence.
Distinguishing Jogendra Yadav: The observations in Jogendra Yadav were case-specific and should not be treated as a general rule.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan examined the legal principles surrounding Section 319 CrPC and ruled in favor of the respondents.

Key Observations of the Court

The Supreme Court made several important observations:

Section 319 CrPC Does Not Mandate Prior Hearing: The Court clarified that there is no legal requirement to grant a prior hearing before summoning a person as an accused.
Proceeding to Trial: The phrase “proceed against such person” in Section 319 CrPC indicates that the person summoned is to face trial, not to undergo a preliminary inquiry.
Higher Degree of Satisfaction Required: The Court reiterated that invoking Section 319 CrPC requires stronger evidence than what is needed at the stage of framing charges.
Discharge Not Available: A person added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC cannot seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC, as the summoning order itself is based on substantial evidence.
Misinterpretation of Jogendra Yadav: The Court ruled that the observations in Jogendra Yadav should not be treated as a binding precedent requiring prior hearings for persons summoned under Section 319 CrPC.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:

“A person who is summoned in exercise of the power under Section 319 CrPC cannot hijack the trial by demanding a prior hearing.”

The Court directed the appellants to appear before the Sessions Court and participate in the trial.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment clarifies the legal position on Section 319 CrPC and sets a precedent for future cases:

No Additional Procedural Delays: Courts do not need to conduct a mini-trial before summoning an accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Strengthening Trial Efficiency: The ruling ensures that cases progress without unnecessary interruptions.
Emphasizing Judicial Discretion: The trial court retains discretion in summoning additional accused based on strong evidence.
Fair Opportunity During Trial: The accused will still have all procedural rights, including cross-examination and defense arguments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Yashodhan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms the importance of judicial efficiency and the integrity of criminal trials. By ruling that no prior hearing is required under Section 319 CrPC, the Court has ensured that legal proceedings are not derailed by procedural complications while still protecting the rights of the accused.

Petitioner Name: Yashodhan Singh & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Place Of Incident: Hathras, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 17-07-2023.

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

Download Judgment: yashodhan-singh-&-or-vs-state-of-uttar-prade-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-17-07-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in Judgment by Ujjal Bhuyan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category