The Supreme Court on 23rd July, in Shiv Prakash Mishra v State of UP has dismissed the appeal against the orders of the Trial Court and Allahabad High Court declining to summon Subhash Chandra Shukla in an ongoing criminal case for want of proof of his presence at the site of the alleged unlawful assembly and murder.
Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna reiterated that Section 319 of the CrPC – empowering courts to summon a person appearing to be guilty of an offence during the course of a trial – should be exercised sparingly. The standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an accused under Section 319 CrPC is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against the accused person.
Court refused to summon Subhash Chandra Shukla on grounds that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory. Trial court noted that the Shiv Prakash Mishra’s version of the story not just varied, but contradicted himself as well as the second witness, Assistant Teacher Anand Kumar Mishra.
Further, while the FIR mentioned Shukla’s name, the Investigating Officer dropped the name based on materials collected during investigation; the officer found that Shukla was away due to work reasons, posted at the site of construction of a bridge, 30 km away. The same was verified by his co-workers. He was never charge-sheeted and the court took note of the fact that Shiv Prakash Mishra did not file any protest petition then and there. The courts were thus right in refusing to summon Shukla as an accused later.
SC said, “The evidence brought on record during trial does not prima facie show the complicity of respondent No.2(Subhash Chandra Shukla) in the occurrence and the High Court was justified in refusing to summon respondent No.2 as an accused. The High Court and the trial court concurrently held that the materials brought on record are not sufficient to summon the second respondent as an accused in the present case. No substantial ground is made out warranting interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”
Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case keeping in mind the findings in the appeal in SC and the revision in the High Court not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the main case.
-India Legal Bureau