Manjeet Singh v state of Haryana

Manjeet Singh v state of Haryana

Citation- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.875 of 2021

Date of judgement– 24^TH August 2021 

Court- Supreme court of India 

Case type- CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Appellant- MANJEET SINGH   

Respondent- STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Bench- Hon’ble Dr. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah

Referred section- Section 319 CrPC,section 148 and 149 of IPC, Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 & 149 IPC.

Facts of the case 

After purchasing pesticides for paddy in their car, Rann Singh, his son Amarjit Singh, and his nephew Manjeet Singh were attacked by Sartaj Singh, Tejpal Singh, and Sukhpal Singh, sons of Gurdev Singh; Parab Sharan Singh and Preet Samrat, sons of Mohan Sarup; and Sukhpal Singh, son of Gurdev Singh. All of these individuals were driving in the same car. When they halted in the middle of the road and blocked access to it, they were driving a Mahendera XUV 500 that belonged to Sartaj Singh. They were armed, and when his son Amarjit Singh followed by Manjeet Singh stepped out of his car to have the road cleared, his father Sartaj Singh shot four bullets from his licenced revolver, wounding Amarjit Singh in the left side of his chest, the stomach, and the elbow. Manjeet Singh was also injured in the incident. Even though Manjeet Singh was struck by one of the bullets, he was able to survive the incident. Sartaj Singh fired his licenced revolver without discriminating, shooting his nephew Manjeet Singh in the chest near his right shoulder. Manjeet Singh was hospitalised with life-threatening injuries. Unfortunately, Manjeet Singh got hurt. According to the testimony that Rann Sin provided, [the defendant] It was determined that none of the other defendants were responsible for the crime, thus their names were kept in column no. 2. In the cross case, one of the accused died, and a challan was issued against two persons. Four of the people who were issued the challan were named in column no. 2 of the challan; their names are Palwinder Singh, Rajwant Singh, Sukhdeep Singh, and Satkar Singh. 2.3 The matter was transferred to the Court of Sessions, and the procedures began in both the primary case, which originated from the submission of police report number 477 on July 27, 2016, and the cross case. The primary case resulted from the fact that police report number 477 was submitted. That the appellant in this instance wound up being questioned as the first witness throughout the trial was the direct effect of FIR No. 477. During the deposition, he reiterated the accusations that were contained in the FIR, as well as the charges that were made against the private respondents in this case, namely Sukhpal Singh, Tejpal Singh, Parab Sharan, and Preet Samrat. During the deposition, he also denied the allegations that were made against the private respondents. Additionally, he restated the information that was contained in the FIR.  Manjeet Singh was sent to the hospital while his brother Amarjit Singh was pronounced dead at the spot.

Issues of the case

a clarification of the criteria that must be met before a person who seems to be responsible for an offence should be ordered to appear in court or not ?

Arguments of the case

As a result of feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order passed by the High Court in CRR 3238 of 2018, by which the High Court set aside the order passed by the trial Court dated 28.07.2016 summoning Palwinder Singh, Satkar Singh, Rajwant Singh, and Sukhdeep Singh under Section 319 CrPC, Sartaj Singh approached this Court through Criminal Appeal No.298-299 of 2021. The appeal was filed with this Court. This very Bench, by detailed judgement and order dated 15.03.2021, allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court passed in CRR No.3238 of 2018 and restored the order passed by the Learned trial Court arising out of a cross case given by Sartaj Singh dated 28.07.2016. This was done by allowing the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the High Court, and restoring the order passed by the Learned trial Court.

That following this, the present appellant herein Manjeet Singh has chosen to prefer the present appeal in which he challenges the order passed by the High Court passed in CRR 28 of 2018, by which the High Court has confirmed the order passed by the Learned trial Court dismissing an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon private respondents herein as additional accused and to face the trial arising out of FIR No.477 of 2016 dated 27.07.2016. This application was rejected by the Learned trial Court. It is argued that the appellant herein – PW1 has also expressly mentioned the private respondents herein with their precise function, and that she did so even in the deposition. It is argued that as a result, the Learned trial Court should have made use of the authorities granted to it by Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code and should have called upon the private respondents to appear as extra accused. 8.6 It is argued that even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witnesses concerned, the Court can in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC summon the persons even named in the examination-in-chief as additional accused and to face the trial. This was held by this Court in a catena of decisions and more particularly in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92. It has been argued that in the current instance not only have the identities of the private respondents been given in the examination-in-chief of the appellant who was the victim, but that they have also been mentioned in the FIR with specific roles. It is argued that the High Court erred in delving into the accusations and the evidence on the merits when it passed the impugned judgement and order since doing so is entirely inadmissible at this time, as established by this court in the decisions referenced above as well as in other decisions. This court has concluded that doing so is inadmissible at this point.

 It is argued that the High Court did not take into consideration the fact that the charges against the original accused as well as the private respondents in this case are for the aforementioned offences under Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code as well. It is argued that while examining the accusation brought under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the individual role and overt conduct committed by each accused person is irrelevant and/or material, and that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove just that the accused person participated in an unlawful assembly. (For further information, see the cases of Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 and Shambhu Nath Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC 725). It is argued that the fact that the High Court has stated that no injury has been attributed to either of the respondents apart from the fact that they were armed with weapons and that they cannot be arrayed as additional accused because of this is unsustainable and runs counter to the law that has been laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions on Section 149 of the IPC. 8.11 Even the observations made by the High Court, which state that it cannot be stated that the private respondents had any common goal or that there was a meeting of mind that Sartaj Singh would be killed, are seen to be unnecessary at this juncture, according to the arguments that have been presented. It has been argued that the court does not need to get into the specifics of the claims or the evidence at this point in the proceedings. It is argued here that as a result of this, the High Court has not used its powers conferred in it under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code when it has made the foregoing remarks and when it has rejected the application.

 It is argued that even taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court made a serious mistake when it relied on the judgement that this Court made in the matter of Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 Supreme Court Case No. 706. It has been argued that in the current case, if we go through and study the final report by which the private respondents herein were to be in column no. 2, there does not appear to be any evidence presented or specific allegations considered against the private respondents herein. This is because the final report was meant to place the private respondents herein in column no. 2. It is argued that the private respondents in this case are placed at column no. 2 on the basis of the reports of HC Baljinder Singh, HPS, DSP Assandh and Shri Kushal Pal, HPS, DSP Indri, who are not even the Investigating Officer. Neither the reports, if there are any, nor the aforementioned officers are cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet. It is thus argued that as such no adequate investigation has been carried out against the private respondents herein, and without considering the particular claims that have been made against the private respondents herein, which have been made in the FIR, the private respondents herein are retained in column no. 2, as the argument goes. It has been argued that for this reason, the decision that was made in the case of Brijendra Singh (Supra) would not be appropriate to apply to the circumstances of the case that is currently being considered.

After making the aforementioned arguments and relying on the decisions made in the cases of Hardeep Singh (Supra), S. Mohammed Ispahani vs. Yogendra Chandak (2017) 16 SCC 226, Rajesh vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368, and the recent decision made by this Court in the case of Sartaj Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2021 (4) Scale 227, which was arising out of the case

Judgement of the case

Since the court enters the stage of inquiry after the charge-sheet is filed, and the trial begins as soon as the court frames the charges, the power granted by Section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised at any time after the charge-sheet is filed and before the judgement is pronounced, with the exception of the stage of Sections 207/208 of the Criminal Procedure Code, committal, etc., which is only a pre-trial stage that is intended to set the process in motion. Because this stage just demands an application of mind rather than a judicial application of mind, it cannot be argued that this stage is a judicial step in the real sense of the word. At this pre-trial stage, the Magistrate is expected to do tasks that are more administrative in character than they are judicial. These include ensuring conformity with Sections 207 and 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code and committing the issue to the Sessions Court if it is exclusively triable by that court. Therefore, it would be appropriate for us to draw the conclusion that the Magistrate, at the stage of Sections 207 to 209 of the CrPC, is prohibited, by the express provision of Section 319 of the CrPC, from applying his mind to the merits of the case and deciding whether any accused parties need to be added or subtracted to face trial before the Court of Session. This would be a legitimate conclusion for us to reach.

. It is therefore abundantly obvious that the authority granted by Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be utilised until and until the matter reaches the level of investigation or trial before the court. In point of fact, the Constitution Bench’s decision in Dharam Pal (CB) [Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC 306: AIR 2013 SC 3018] does not appear to have called into question the validity of this premise. The dispute was resolved after the parties involved envisioned a scenario in which the court was concerned with procedural delay and was of the opinion that the Sessions Court should not necessarily wait until the stage of Section 319 CrPC is reached to direct a person who was not facing trial to appear and face trial as an accused person. In this scenario, the court would be concerned with procedural delay and would be of the opinion that the Sessions Court should not wait until the stage. Once the matter has been handed over to the Sessions Court, we are in complete agreement with the interpretation that was provided by the Constitution Bench, which states that Section 193 of the CrPC gives the power of original jurisdiction upon the Sessions Court, allowing it to add an accused to the case.

 In their  judgement, the stage of inquiry does not take into consideration any evidence in the strict meaning of the word, nor could the legislature have taken this into consideration because the stage for evidence has not yet been reached. This is because the stage for evidence has not yet been reached. The only evidence that the court has in front of it is the evidence that was gathered by the prosecution, and at this stage the court can prima facie apply its mind to determine whether or not a person, who could be an accused, has been erroneously omitted from being arraigned or has been deliberately excluded by the prosecuting agencies. To guarantee that the investigating and prosecuting authorities have behaved fairly in bringing those individuals before the court who deserve to be tried and to prevent any person from being purposefully sheltered when they ought to have been tried, this is all the more required. This is to ensure that the investigating and prosecuting agencies have acted fairly in bringing those persons before the court who deserve to be tried. This is vital to usher in trust in the legal system, wherein the court should be authorised to wield such powers even at the level of inquiry, and it is because of this reason that the legislature has deliberately employed different phrases, namely, inquiry or trial, under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

 As a result of this, they have reached the conclusion that the court has the authority to employ the power granted to it by Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) only after the trial has begun and has begun with the recording of the evidence, as well as in exceptional situations such as those described hereinabove.

 In addition, the provisions of Sections 200, 201, 202, and so on of the Criminal Procedure Code that are applicable in the event of complaint cases are considered to be a component of the investigation that is relevant for the purposes of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Evidence, as has been explained in this article, refers to evidence that is presented before the court. There is a specific type of criminal proceeding known as a complaint case. In this type of proceeding, the court hears evidence in accordance with Section 3 of the Evidence Act of 1872 (which will be referred to in the following text simply as “the Evidence Act”). Even before the charges have been formulated or the process has been issued, there does not appear to be any restriction in the requirements of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code that would prevent such evidence from being presented before the court in the context of a complaint case. However, because there is no accused person in court at that point, such evidence can only be used to bolster the testimony that was recorded over the course of the trial or, if necessary, to satisfy the requirements of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is irrelevant at what stage of the proceedings the proceedings are now at since what is important for the purpose of the provision is that there should emerge some evidence against a person who has not been proceeded against. In the event that the complainant is hesitant to initiate legal action against multiple individuals, but the court is of the opinion that there appears to be some evidence pointing to the complicity of multiple other individuals as well, Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code serves as an empowering provision that enables the court or the Magistrate to initiate legal action against the multiple other individuals. The objective of Criminal Procedure Code section 319 is to achieve full justice and to guarantee that those individuals who should have been tried as well are, in fact, brought to trial. At this point of the proceedings in a complaint case, when the testimony of the complainant and his witnesses is being recorded, there does not appear to be any issue in exercising the powers granted by Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 6.1.4 While answering Question (iii), which asked whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or whether the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial, this Court, in the aforementioned decision, has observed and held as follows:

 To answer the questions and to overcome the barrier that is being encountered by the trial courts in exercising of powers under Section 319 CrPC, the problem needs to be explored by analysing the conditions that give rise to a scenario for the court to invoke such powers. In order to answer the questions and to resolve the impediment that is being faced by the trial courts in exercising of powers under Section 319 CrPC, the issue has to be investigated. The availability of the facts and material that are brought before the court and are used as the foundation for summons such a person as an accomplice to the offence that is claimed to have been committed are the conditions that lead to such inference being drawn up by the court for summoning a person. This inference is drawn up because of the availability of these facts and materials. The material should reveal the person’s involvement in the conduct of the offence, which has to be the material that appears from the evidence throughout the course of any investigation into or trial of the offence. The material should be disclosed during any inquiry into or trial of the offence. The material must be “where… it appears from the evidence” in front of the court, according to the language that is employed in Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Overview of the case- The court’s interpretation of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code was rather expansive. The objective is to make certain that the person who committed the actual act of criminality does not go free without consequence. The courts have been granted the authority to perform the duties necessary to ensure that the criminal justice system operates effectively. To ensure that no innocent person is punished while at the same time those responsible for the crime are brought to justice, efforts have been undertaken to provide courts the authority to discover the truth. This ensures that the investigative agencies are acting properly and gives the courts the ability to summon the accused to trial in situations in which the investigative agencies do not bring charges against the individuals who are actually responsible for the crime. The courts have been charged with the responsibility of upholding the law and ensuring that justice is served. In our legal system, where it is typical for actual accused to get away with a crime without being brought to jail by manipulating the investigating or prosecuting agency, the powers bestowed upon the courts by Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code are highly vital and must exist in order for our system to function properly.

References – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181270364/

WRITTEN BY ASHITTA ARORA OP JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.