Standard to summon accused not same as final verdict: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the standard of satisfaction required for summoning a person not named as an accused in charge sheet is short of what is necessary for passing a final judgment after trial.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi pointed out Section 319 CrPC was an enabling provision, empowering the court to proceed against any person, even if not cited as an accused, based on the evidence collected during the inquiry or trial, revealing the complicity of such a person.

The bench said the provision casts duty upon the court to ensure that the real culprit does not get away unpunished.

"The object is to ensure that no guilty person should be allowed to escape the process of law, which is based on the doctrine of judex damnatur cum nocens absolviture (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted)," the bench said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by Shiv Baran against rejection of a plea to summon Rajendra Prasad Yadav as accused in 2017 murder trial of his brother.

It referred to the Constitution bench judgement in Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab (2014) which held that the court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross examination.

This court in Labhuji Amratji Thakor Vs State of Gujarat (2019) reiterated the test of satisfaction laid down in Hardeep Singh case to be the one that is more than a prima facie case required at the time of framing of charges, but less than the satisfaction that would warrant conviction.

Having gone through the facts, the bench said, "The High Court tried to apply the same standard in deciding this application as is ordinarily used at the end of the trial in determining the conviction or otherwise of the accused. Whereas it ought to have considered that the standard of satisfaction required is short of the standard necessary for passing a final judgment after trial."

The court found Rajendra Prasad, although not charge sheeted, was named in the FIR, and the evidence thus far, leads, prima facie, to reveal his role.

There is sufficient material to put him on trial; whether he will ultimately be convicted or not is left to be determined by a full-fledged inquiry at the end of the trial, the bench said.

The high court proceeded to conduct a mini trial, based on erroneous assumption and contrary to the factual position emerging from the record, the court said.

The court also noted the first informant categorically mentioned Rajendra Prasad as the one who came along with the others, with a common intent, abusing and beating, causing the death of his brother, apart from causing serious injuries to the others.