Smt. Suman vs State of U.P. And Another on 13 December, 2021
| Equivalent Citations: | A.I.R 2021 |
| Date of Judgement: | 13 December 2021 |
| Court: | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad |
| Case No.: | 2992 of 2021 |
| Appellant: | Smt. Suman Counsel for Revisionist: Manoj Kumar Tripathi |
| Respondent: | State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A. |
| Bench: | Vikas Budhwar |
| Statutes Referred: | • Section 319 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 • The Salt Cess Act, 1953 • The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 • Section 398 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 |
| Other case cited: | • State Of U.P. vs Sarvan on 6 September, 2022 • Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92. |
The present criminal revision, filed under sections 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), challenges the summoning order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hapur. The order in question was issued in response to an application filed under section 319 Cr.P.C., arising from a Special Sessions Trial and a case crime registered against Rahul and others.
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
• On 17th January 2016, the minor daughter, Ms. Chanchal, aged about 15 years, went out of her house to buy sugar. However, she did not return within a reasonable time, prompting her father, the opposite party no. 2, and other relatives to start searching for her. After approximately two months, on 17th March 2016, Ms. Chanchal returned and revealed the harrowing ordeal she had endured.
• According to her statement, on the day she went to buy sugar, Rahul, the son of Darshan and resident of Village Achchheja, Hapur Nagar, exerted pressure and force upon her. He took her to a house in Keshav Nagar, Footi Line, where he kept her in confinement and repeatedly raped her. At one point, Rahul’s wife, Suman (the applicant), visited the house, but despite the victim’s pleas to be allowed to return home, Suman did not help her. Instead, she instructed the victim to remain in confinement. After Suman left, Rahul continued to rape the victim against her wishes.
• As a result of the victim’s account, her father lodged an FIR on 17th March 2016 at the Hapur Nagar police station. The case was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including sections 363 (kidnapping), 376(2)(I) (rape), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy), as well as section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
• Statements were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. from the victim, her father, and witnesses named Satish, Smt. Pooja, Smt. Malti Devi, and Shivbaran Singh. These statements provided support to the victim’s allegations. Additionally, the victim’s statement was also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. to further solidify the evidence against the accused.
• During the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet on 2nd May 2016 against Rahul alone. However, on 20th November 2020, the opposite party no. 2 filed an application
stating that the charge sheet only implicated Rahul and not the applicant, Smt. Suman, Layak Ram, and Raja Ram, who were also named in the FIR. The application sought to include these individuals in the proceedings.
• The court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hapur subsequently invoked its powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the applicants based on the material available on record.
• The revisionist, represented by their counsel, challenged this summoning order. They argued that there was insufficient material to implicate the revisionist in the offense and that the court below had erred in exercising its powers under section 319 Cr.P.C.
• In response, the learned Assistant Government Advocate (A.G.A.) pointed out the statement of the victim’s father recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., which specifically mentioned the revisionist’s involvement in the offense.
• Upon careful examination, the court found that the revisionist’s name was indeed mentioned in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. The court concluded that there was ample evidence available to the lower court to invoke the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C.
• The revisionist’s counsel failed to demonstrate any perversity or jurisdictional error committed by the court below. Consequently, the revision was deemed misconceived and dismissed.
• In conclusion, the summoning order issued under section 319 Cr.P.C. was upheld, as there was sufficient material available on record to implicate the revisionist in the offense. The revisionist’s arguments lacked merit, and no grounds for challenging the lower court’s decision were established.
ARGUMENTS:
The revisionist, represented by their counsel, has raised several arguments challenging the summoning order passed by the court below under section 319 Cr.P.C. The following arguments were presented before the court in support of the revision:
1) Lack of Material Evidence: The counsel for the revisionist contended that there was a lack of material evidence to implicate the revisionist in the alleged offense. They argued that the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., which mentioned the revisionist’s involvement, was insufficient to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The revisionist maintained that they had been falsely implicated in the case and urged the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully.
2) Jurisdictional Error: The revisionist’s counsel asserted that the court below had committed a jurisdictional error by invoking the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. without proper justification. They argued that the court failed to apply the correct legal principles and exceeded its jurisdiction in summoning the revisionist. The counsel emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed parameters while exercising powers under section 319 Cr.P.C.
3) Lack of Prima Facie Case: It was contended that the court below did not establish a prima facie case against the revisionist. The counsel argued that there was a dearth of evidence connecting the revisionist to the alleged offense. They highlighted the importance of a strong prima facie case before summoning an accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. and maintained that such a case was lacking in this instance.
4) Perversity in the Court’s Findings: The counsel for the revisionist alleged that the court below had committed perversity in its findings while summoning the revisionist. They claimed that the court had failed to properly evaluate the evidence and had drawn erroneous conclusions. The counsel urged the court to scrutinize the lower court’s findings and rectify any perversity that may have occurred.
5) False Implication: The revisionist’s counsel vehemently asserted that the revisionist had been falsely implicated in the present case. They argued that there was a possibility of ulterior motives behind the revisionist’s involvement and urged the court to consider this aspect while deciding on the summoning order. They requested the court to thoroughly examine the evidence and ensure that justice was served.
In response to these arguments, the learned Assistant Government Advocate (A.G.A.) representing the State put forth counter-arguments to support the validity of the summoning order. The A.G.A. emphasized the importance of the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., which specifically mentioned the revisionist’s involvement in the offense. They contended that this statement, coupled with the other corroborating evidence, provided a strong basis for summoning the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C.
Furthermore, the A.G.A. asserted that the court below had correctly exercised its powers within the prescribed parameters. They argued that the court had carefully evaluated the evidence and reached a reasonable conclusion in summoning the revisionist. The A.G.A. highlighted the gravity of the offense and the need to ensure that all individuals involved were held accountable.
The A.G.A. also stressed that the revisionist’s arguments lacked merit and failed to establish any perversity or jurisdictional error committed by the court below. They urged the court to uphold the summoning order and dismiss the revision.
In light of these arguments presented by both parties, the court was tasked with carefully evaluating the evidence and legal principles to arrive at a just and reasoned judgment.
JUDGMENT:
• The present revision seeks to challenge the summoning order passed by the court below under sections 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in response to an application filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. The key issue before this Court is whether the summoning order and the application are in line with the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
• After careful consideration of the facts and arguments presented, this Court finds that the revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The revisionist’s counsel contended that there was no material available on record to implicate the revisionist in the alleged offense. However, it is evident from the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. by the victim’s father that the revisionist’s name was specifically mentioned in relation to the commission of the offense. The court below properly analyzed the evidence and arrived at a reasonable conclusion.
• In support of the court’s decision, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 provided valuable guidance on the scope and ambit of section 319 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised when there is sufficient material available on record during the course of the inquiry or trial, and the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied that a person not named in the charge sheet has committed the offense. The Court further stated that the discretion under section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously, ensuring that no accused goes free due to any lacuna attributed by the Investigating Officer.
• Quoting from the Hardeep Singh case, the Court stated, “Once the Magistrate finds that there was sufficient material available on record before it to summon a person in the trial, the powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. are to be invoked.” The Court reiterated that the purpose of section 319 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that those deserving of trial are not allowed to go scot-free.
• Moreover, the Court found no perversity or manifest illegality in the findings recorded by the court below. The revisionist’s counsel failed to establish any jurisdictional error or grounds for challenging the summoning order. The Court held that the court below properly exercised its jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. based on the material available on record, including the statement of the victim’s father.
• The revisionist’s argument that they have been falsely implicated in the case without any basis was dismissed by the Court. It reiterated that it could not substitute its own views for those of the court below when there was ample evidence to justify the invocation of section 319 Cr.P.C.
• In light of the above considerations, this Court affirms the order passed by the court below and dismisses the present revision. The revisionist’s contention of lack of material or false implication lacks merit and is unsubstantiated. The court below properly exercised its powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. based on the available evidence, as required by law.
• In conclusion, the revision is dismissed, and the summoning order passed by the court below is upheld. The revisionist’s arguments fail to demonstrate any error in the lower court’s decision. The court’s reliance on the evidence and compliance with the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. are well-founded. The revisionist shall bear the costs of the proceedings.
CONCLUSION
After careful analysis of the facts, issues, arguments, and the court’s order, this revision is found to be misconceived. The summoning order passed by the lower court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was justified due to the sufficient material available on record implicating the revisionist in the alleged offenses. The revisionist’s claim of innocence and lack of involvement is insufficient to challenge the lower court’s decision. Consequently, the revision is dismissed, and no costs are awarded.
In conclusion, this case demonstrates the importance of carefully considering the evidence and applying the provisions of the law to determine whether a summoning order is justified. The courts must exercise their discretion judiciously, ensuring that individuals who deserve to be tried for their alleged offenses are not allowed to escape legal consequences.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Zoya Hashmi a law student of Integral University Lucknow, 6th Semester, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
