Keywords: FIR, caste, accused, evidence.
A person cause of not being named under FIR , filed an appeal against the order of summoning him for trial passed by special court on basis of satisfactory evidence against him under sec 14(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989.
But his appeal was dismissed as section 319 Cr. P.C emphasized the power to Supreme Court to even held a trial against any person even when he is not shown as accused in FIR only in one condition that there are enough evidences to prove that the summoned person is also one of the accused.
In the case, sole accused shown in FIR was Dharmendra but complainant and his wife stated during the trial that the assault against them related to caste hurle has been committed by not only Dharmendra but appellant along with an accused person was also included in the same.
But as the abuse was happened in public place , still there was no eye-witness from public found, so exercise of section 319 Cr. P.C. was argued as arbitrary. But oral evidences submitted by complainant and his wife against three person were taken into consideration by the Special Court. FIR was also made in a sense that was indirectly showing the adjoined offence committed ,has been happened by both appellant and Dharmendra . Also, the fact that appellant due to being sibling of accused can be taken as an assumption of his involvement in the abuse on caste cause of the same name as assailants. So, special court summoned him for being present in trial.
Supreme court vested powers under section 319 Cr. P.C. upheld the same decision of special court and high court by dismissing the appeal of appellant.
written by : Chanchal, College Name : GLA University, Mathura, Semester 2nd, an intern under legal vidhiya
0 Comments