Section 319 CrPC and the Standard of Evidence: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Labhuji Amratji Thakor Case

The case of Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat revolves around the application of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows the court to proceed against individuals who have not been named in the charge sheet but whose involvement in a crime is revealed during the trial. This case was specifically focused on whether the Gujarat High Court erred in exercising this power without sufficient evidence against the appellants.

Background of the Case

The case began when the complainant lodged an FIR on May 27, 2015, accusing one Natuji Bachuji Thakor of abducting her 14-year-old daughter, Parvati. The investigation led to the charge sheet being filed against Natuji under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, during the trial, the victim’s statement implicated the appellants, Labhuji, Shashikant, and Jituji, claiming that they had accompanied Natuji and were involved in the abduction. Based on this, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to add these individuals as accused in the case.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The appellants argued that:

• The High Court erred in exercising its powers under Section 319 CrPC without a sufficient prima facie case against them.
• The statements made by the victim and her mother were inconsistent and did not directly implicate the appellants in the crime.
• The trial court had already rejected the application to proceed against them, and the High Court failed to provide any adequate reasoning for reversing this decision.

Arguments by the Respondent

The State, in response, contended that:

• The victim’s statement, along with her mother’s testimony, clearly implicated the appellants, and there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the charges against them.
• The High Court’s decision to summon the appellants for trial was justified given that their names had emerged during the trial and they were directly associated with the commission of the crime.

Observations by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court critically examined the application of Section 319 CrPC, drawing on precedents to establish the standard of evidence required to proceed against individuals not named in the charge sheet. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab to clarify the nature of the power under Section 319 CrPC, which is:

“The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary. It should be exercised sparingly, only in cases where there is strong and cogent evidence against a person, indicating their involvement in the commission of the offence.”

The Court observed that:

“Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court, such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order, holding that the High Court had not adequately considered the nature of the evidence presented during the trial. The Court found that:

• The victim’s statement, even though it mentioned the appellants, did not establish a prima facie case of their complicity in the abduction or the sexual offence.
• The statement made by the victim in court was inconsistent with her initial statement to the police, where she had not named the appellants as accomplices.
• There was insufficient evidence to justify invoking Section 319 CrPC to add the appellants as accused.

The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC should not be exercised simply because the names of other individuals emerge during trial. There must be a substantial basis in the evidence to show that those individuals were directly involved in the commission of the crime. The ruling reinforces the need for a careful and thorough evaluation of evidence before proceeding against individuals not initially named in the FIR or charge sheet.

Petitioner Name: Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors..
Respondent Name: The State of Gujarat.
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 13-11-2018.

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

Download Judgment: Labhuji Amratji Thak vs The State of Gujarat Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-11-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Rape Cases
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2018
See all petitions in 2018 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