Juhru & Ors. VERSUS Karim & Anr.

Juhru & Ors. VERSUS Karim & Anr. 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.549 OF 2023

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1658 of 2020]

Juhru & Ors. … Appellant(s)

                                             VERSUS

Karim & Anr. … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Surya Kant, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal originates from a judgment dated

27.01.2020 whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh (in short ‘High Court’), while setting aside the order

dated 12.07.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh,

has ordered the summoning of the Appellants under Section 319

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) as

additional accused. 

A.   FACTS

3. Briefly stated the facts are that FIR No. 270 dated 09.07.2017

was   registered   at   Police   Station   Tauru,   District   Nuh   under

Sections 304B, 498A, 406, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) on the statement of Karim ­ Respondent

No.   1   to   the   effect   that   the   marriage   of   his   deceased   sister

(Rukseena) was solemnised on 04.12.2016 with one Aamir.  An

Alto car, Rs.3 lakhs in cash, 3 kg of silver, 30 grams of gold,

furniture   and   other   household   items   were   allegedly   given   to

Aamir and his family members as dowry at the time of marriage.

The   family   of   Aamir   comprised   of   Akhlima   (mother),   Juhru

(father) – Appellant No.1, Sonam (sister) – Appellant No.2 and

Rijwan   (brother­in­law)   –   Appellant   No.3.     The   complainant

further alleged that the family of Aamir was dissatisfied with the

dowry and subjected the deceased to continuous torture and

harassment.  Respondent No.1 and his family tried to settle the

matter with Aamir and his family but all their efforts proved

futile.     Respondent   No.   1   was   telephonically   informed   on

09.07.2017 that the deceased had hung herself to death.

4. The investigating agency did not find any incriminating material

against the Appellants in the course of investigation and Challan

was filed only against the husband and the mother­in­law of the

deceased, who are now facing trial.

5. During the trial, Respondent No. 1 stepped into the witness box

as PW­1 on 01.03.2018 and reiterated the allegations levelled

Page | 2

against all the accused persons, including the Appellants. Soon

thereafter, Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section

319 Cr.P.C before the Trial Court to summon the Appellants as

additional accused. 

6. The Trial Court dismissed the said application observing that the

extraordinary power vested under section 319 Cr.P.C ought to be

exercised   only   if   the   evidence   adduced   on   record   strongly

indicates the possible involvement of the person(s) aimed to be

prosecuted. The Trial Court further opined that it did not appear

from the deposition of Respondent No. 1 or from other material

on   record   that   the   persons   sought   to   be   summoned   had

committed any offence for which they could be tried together

with accused Aamir and Akhlima. 

7. The aggrieved Respondent No. 1, approached the High Court

under   Section   482,   Cr.P.C.   and   vide   impugned   order   dated

27.01.2020 his petition was allowed and the appellants were

summoned to face trial. The High Court observed that the FIR as

well   as   the   testimony   of   Respondent   No.   1   during   the   trial

revealed   that   the   insinuations   against   the   Appellants   were

exactly  the   same  as   those   attributed  to   the  accused   already

facing   trial.   Hence,   in   the   absence   of   any   distinguishable

features, the Appellants were also liable to be tried along with

Page | 3

Aamir and Akhlima. The High Court further viewed that there

existed   sufficient   grounds   for   summoning   the   Appellants   as

additional accused. 

8. Discontented   with   their   summoning   by   the   High   Court,   the

Appellants are before us. 

B. CONTENTIONS

9.   Mr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the Appellants, vehemently

contended that the High Court has committed a grave error of

law   in   not   appreciating   that   the   powers   under   Section   319

Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly only if the evidence vividly

points out the possible involvement of the person(s) proposed to

be   prosecuted.   There   is   not   an   iota   of   evidence   against   the

appellants to glean a conclusion of their involvement. Further,

the fact that the  Appellants  were found  innocent  during the

course   of   two­fold   investigation   has   not   been   adequately

considered by the High Court. There is no evidence to suggest

even remotely that the Appellants were cruel to the deceased

shortly before her death. The allegations are general and vague

in nature without attributing any specific role to the Appellants.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, learned Counsel for

the Ist Respondent, strongly defended the approach of the High

Court and submitted that, given the allegations made in the FIR

Page | 4

and  the  deposition  of  Respondent  No.1,  the  High  Court  was

justified   in   summoning   the   Appellants,   who   were   actively

involved   in   harassing   the   deceased   for   not   bringing   enough

dowry   and   which   eventually   led   to   the   unfortunate   death   of

Rukseena just within 7 months of her marriage.

C.    A    NALYSIS

11.   There is no gainsaid that the alleged offence is grave and heinous

in nature. The long arms of law must find out whether any

person is guilty of abetting or taking away the precious life of a

young girl who soon after her marriage met with such a tragic

end. However, the only issue that falls for our consideration is

whether there is sufficient evidence against the Appellants to

summon them as additional accused?

12. Section 319 Cr.P.C. contemplates that: 

“….Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of,

an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person

not   being   the   Accused   has   committed   any   offence   for

which   such   person   could   be   tried   together   with   the

Accused, the Court may proceed against such person for

the offence which he appears to have committed. … …”

13.   Illuminating the scope of Section 319 Cr.PC, the Constitution

Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab1

laid

down that :

1

 (2014) 3 SCC 92

Page | 5

“57.   Thus,   the   application   of   the   provisions   of

Section  319   CrPC,  at   the   stage  of   inquiry   is   to   be

understood   in   its   correct   perspective.   The   power

under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised only on the

basis   of   the   evidence   adduced   before   the   court

during  a trial. So far as its application during the

course of inquiry is concerned, it remains limited as

referred   to   herein   above,   adding   a   person   as   an

accused, whose name has been mentioned in Column

2 of the charge­sheet or any other person who might

be an accomplice.”

x­x­x­x­x­

“105.   Power   under   Section   319   CrPC   is   a

discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be

exercised   sparingly  and  only   in   those   cases  where

the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to

be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions

Judge is of the opinion that some other person may

also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where

strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person

from   the   evidence   led   before   the   court   that   such

power should be exercised and not in a casual and

cavalier manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie

case is to be established from the evidence led before

the   court,   not   necessarily   tested   on   the   anvil   of

cross­examination,   it   requires   much   stronger

evidence   than   mere   probability   of   his   complicity.

The test that has to be applied is one which is more

than  prima   facie   case  as   exercised  at   the   time   of

framing   of   charge,   but   short   of   satisfaction   to  an

extent  that  the  evidence,  if  goes unrebutted,  would

lead   to   conviction.   In   the   absence   of   such

satisfaction,   the   court   should   refrain   from

exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section

319   CrPC   the   purpose   of   providing   if   “it   appears

from   the   evidence   that   any   person   not   being   the

accused   has   committed  any   offence”   is   clear   from

Page | 6

the   words   “for   which   such   person   could   be   tried

together with the accused”. The words used are not

“for which such person could be convicted”. There is,

therefore,   no   scope   for   the   court   acting   under

Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt

of the accused.”

14. This Court has very recently, in Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The

State of Punjab2

,  succinctly explained the powers bestowed on

the Court under section 319 Cr.P.C. and ruled that: 

“15. At the outset, having noted the provision, it is amply

clear that the power bestowed on the Court is to the effect

that in the course of an inquiry into, or trial of an offence,

based   on   the   evidence   tendered   before   the   Court,   if   it

appears   to   the   Court   that   such   evidence   points   to   any

person other than the accused who are  being tried before

the Court to have committed any offence and such accused

has been excluded in the charge sheet or in the process of

trial   till   such   time   could   still   be   summoned   and   tried

together with the accused for the offence which appears to

have   been   committed   by   such   persons   summoned   as

additional accused.”

15. In Hardeep Singh (Supra), it has been eloquently held that the

word   “evidence”   in   Section   319   Cr.P.C.   has   to   be   broadly

understood   and   thus   materials   which   have   come   before   the

Court in course of enquiry can be used for : ­ 

(i) corroboration   of   evidence   recorded   by   Court   after  

commencement of trial;

(ii) for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; and

2

 (2023) 1 SCC 289

Page | 7

(iii) also to add an accused whose name is shown in column

no.2  of the chargesheet.

It was further explained that statement made in examination­in

chief also constitutes “evidence” and the Court while exercising

power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. post commencement of trial,

need   not   wait   for   evidence   against   person   proposed   to   be

summoned, to be tested by cross­examination.

16. In  Sukhpal   Singh   Khaira   (Supra),  the   Constitution   Bench

refreshed the guidelines that the competent court must follow

while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.  It was ruled

that :­

(i) if   the   competent   court   finds   evidence   or   if   application

under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is filed, regarding involvement of

any   other   person   in   committing   the   offence   based   on

evidence “recorded at any stage in the trial” before passing

of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the

trial at that stage and the Court shall proceed to decide the

fate of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.;

(ii) if the Court decides to summon an accused under Section

319 Cr.P.C., such summoning order shall be passed before

proceeding further  with  the  trial  in  the  main   case  and

depending upon the stage at which the order is passed, the

Page | 8

Trial Court shall apply its mind to the fact as to whether

such summoned accused is to be tried along with other

accused or separately; and

(iii) if the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not invoked or

exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is

a split­up case, such power can be invoked or exercised

only   if   there   is   evidence   to   that   effect,   pointing   to   the

involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in

the spilt­up (bifurcated trial).

17. It   is,   thus,   manifested   from   a   conjoint   reading   of   the   cited

decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is

not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a

prima   facie  case   is  sine   quo   non  to   summon   an   additional

accused.  We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the

frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under

Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity with the binding judicial

dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that

ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of

the trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate

the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and

then adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry the

same weightage and value as has been testified against those

Page | 9

who   are   already   facing   trial.   In   the   absence   of   any   credible

evidence, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be

invoked. 

18. Adverting   to   the   case   in   hand,   the   allegations   against   the

Appellants   are   that   they   too   played   an   active   role   in   the

commission of the alleged offence. 

19. The record reveals that after the application under section 319

Cr.P.C was dismissed by the Trial Court, Respondent No.1 was

called on 06.12.2018 for further examination­in­chief as PW­1.

His deposition distinctively unravels that at the time of marriage,

Appellant No.1 – Juhru (father­in­law) had asked Respondent

No.1 to spend a sum of Rs. 20 lacs on the marriage of Aamir and

the deceased, to which Respondent No.1 had agreed.  Appellant

No.1 and his wife Akhlima (mother­in­law) were living under the

same roof as his son Aamir (husband) and he would have been

privy to all the alleged occurrences of torture, harassment or

demand for more dowry. Viewed from this angle, it appears that

the Ist appellant might have to sink or swim with his son and

wife.   The   High   Court   order,   to   the   extent   of   summoning

Appellant No. 1, therefore, satisfies the ingredients of Section

319 Cr.P.C. and may not warrant any interference by this Court.

Page | 10

20. As regard to Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., Sonam (sister­in­law),

and Rijwan (brother­in­law) of the deceased, it appears to us that

despite   both   of   them   being   named   in   the   FIR   and   in   the

examination­in­chief of Respondent No.1, there is no credible

evidence to connect them with the unnatural death of Rukseena.

There is no cogent material that Appellant No. 2, even after her

marriage   with   Appellant   No.   3,   continued   to   reside   in   her

parents’ house or that they used to inter­meddle in the day to

day marital life of the deceased and Aamir. In the absence of any

authentic   evidence   to   bring   them   in   close   proximity   of   the

reported crime, it would be unjustified to call upon Appellant

Nos. 2 and 3 to face trial as additional accused in this case.  

D. CONCLUSION :

21. In light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that

while   summoning   of   Appellant   No.   1   sustains,   but   that   of

Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 will be farfetched and they cannot be

subjected to trial on the basis of mere strong suspicion. The High

Court   order   under   challenge   is   accordingly   set   aside   qua

Appellant Nos. 2 and 3.

22. Having held that Appellant No.1 has been rightly summoned and

is liable to be tried along with his son and wife, the next question

Page | 11

that requires consideration is as to the manner in which the trial

will proceed hitherto.

23. The information available on record suggests that the trial is at

the stage of defence evidence. The guidelines that the Trial Court

must follow, while commencing the trial against Appellant No.1

have   been   extensively   iterated   by   the   Constitution   Bench   in

Sukhpal Singh Khaira (Supra), in the following terms: 

“41 (III). What are the guidelines that the competent court

must   follow   while   exercising   power   under   Section   319

CrPC?

41.1 If the competent court finds evidence or if application

under   Section   319   of   CrPC   is   filed   regarding

involvement   of   any   other   person   in   committing   the

offence based on evidence recorded at any stage in the

trial   before   passing   of   the   order   on   acquittal   or

sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage.

41.2 The   Court   shall   thereupon   first   decide   the   need   or

otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass

orders thereon.

41.3 If  the  decision  of  the  court   is   to  exercise   the  power

under Section 319 of CrPC and summon the accused,

such   summoning   order   shall   be   passed   before

proceeding further with the trial in the main case.

41.4 If   the   summoning   order   of   additional   accused   is

passed, depending on the stage at which it is passed,

the Court shall also apply its mind to the fact as to

whether such summoned accused is to be tried along

with the other accused or separately.

Page | 12

41.5 If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be

commenced   only   after   securing   the   presence   of   the

summoned accused.

41.6 If the decision is that the summoned accused can be

tried separately, on such order being made, there will

be   no   impediment   for   the   Court   to   continue   and

conclude the trial against the accused who were being

proceeded with.”

24. The Trial Court shall, thus, follow the cited dictum and proceed

against Appellant No. 1 in accordance with law.

25. For the reasons aforestated but without expressing any views on

merits, we partly allow this appeal and modify the impugned

order of the High Court dated 27.01.2020 in above terms. 

26. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

………..………………… J.

(SURYA KANT)

…………………………...J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

NEW DELHI

DATED: 21.02.2023

Page | 13