Supreme Court Quashes Summoning Order in Uttar Pradesh Murder Case

The case of Shankar & Vishal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Court examined whether the summoning order issued against the appellants, directing them to face trial for murder, was legally justified. This judgment reinforces the principle that summoning additional accused requires strong and cogent evidence beyond mere suspicion.

Background of the Case

The appellants, Shankar and Vishal Singh, were summoned to stand trial for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case originated from an FIR lodged on May 10, 2011, by the mother of the deceased, who alleged that her son had been murdered due to longstanding enmity between the families.

The trial court issued a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC, based on the deposition of the deceased’s mother, despite earlier investigations excluding the appellants. The Allahabad High Court upheld this order, leading the appellants to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues Considered

Whether the evidence justified invoking Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellants.
Whether prior statements of the complainant contradicting the charges affected the trial court’s decision.
Whether the absence of direct or corroborative evidence rendered the summoning order unsustainable.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners, Shankar and Vishal Singh, through their counsel, argued:

The FIR initially named them based on suspicion, but subsequent investigations found no evidence against them.
The complainant’s statement under Section 161 CrPC explicitly exonerated them, stating that their names were included mistakenly.
The prosecution’s reliance on later contradictory testimony from the complainant was insufficient to summon them under Section 319 CrPC.
Other witnesses, including key prosecution witnesses, did not implicate them in their testimonies.

Arguments by the Respondents

The State of Uttar Pradesh countered:

Despite earlier exoneration, the trial court had the power to summon additional accused based on fresh evidence.
The complainant’s court testimony provided prima facie grounds for summoning the appellants.
The High Court rightly upheld the trial court’s order as summoning under Section 319 CrPC does not require conclusive proof of guilt but only a prima facie case.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court examined the circumstances under which a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC is justified.

1. Test for Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC

The Court reaffirmed that:

Summoning additional accused is an extraordinary power requiring strong and reliable evidence.
The test for summoning must be stricter than that required for framing charges.
Mere suspicion or prima facie inference is insufficient; there must be evidence that could lead to conviction if unrebutted.

2. Contradictions in the Complainant’s Statements

The Court noted:

The complainant initially named the appellants in the FIR but later retracted, stating their names were mistakenly included.
Her deposition in court revived the allegations, but her prior exculpatory statements created doubt about the credibility of the accusations.
No other witnesses corroborated her claims, weakening the prosecution’s case.

3. Absence of Corroborative Evidence

The Court highlighted:

The police investigation and charge sheet did not implicate the appellants.
None of the prosecution witnesses provided independent evidence linking them to the crime.
Summoning under Section 319 CrPC cannot be based on a witness’s sole inconsistent statement.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court quashed the summoning order, stating:

“The deposition of PW-1, in light of her earlier contradictory statement and absence of corroborative evidence, does not meet the high threshold required for invoking Section 319 CrPC. Summoning accused must not be done in a mechanical manner based on mere suspicion.”

The Court also set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision, reaffirming that discretionary power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and judiciously.

Implications of the Judgment

Precedent for Summoning Orders: The ruling reinforces that summoning additional accused requires a high threshold of evidence.
Protection Against Frivolous Prosecution: Prevents individuals from being unnecessarily dragged into criminal trials based on weak or contradictory evidence.
Judicial Scrutiny of Witness Testimonies: Ensures that courts critically evaluate the reliability of witness statements before invoking Section 319 CrPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict in this case underscores the principle that criminal trials must be based on strong, consistent, and credible evidence. By quashing the summoning order against the appellants, the Court has reinforced safeguards against the misuse of Section 319 CrPC, ensuring that individuals are not unjustly implicated in criminal proceedings.

Petitioner Name: Shankar & Vishal Singh.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Aravind Kumar.
Place Of Incident: Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 02-05-2024.

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

Download Judgment: shankar-&-vishal-sin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-05-2024.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 Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by P.S. Narasimha
See all petitions in Judgment by Aravind Kumar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2024
See all petitions in 2024 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