UPHOLDING FAIR TRIAL PRINCIPLES: SUPREME COURT'S STANCE ON SUMMONING NEW ACCUSED

CASE NAME : JITENDRA NATH MISHRA vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:978 OF 2022

DATE : 2nd June, 2023

Quorum: Justice Dipankar Datta , Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE.

This case concerned Jitendra Nath Mishra who had to appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court made on June 1, 2022. In the High Court he had approached it under Section 14 A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the ‘1989 Act’. The whole process began with filing a complaint in the Police Station namely Khalilabad Police Station, District Sant Kabir Nagar, by the victim woman. According to the FIR, three persons, namely, Dharmendra Nath Mishra, the appellant herein and an unknown person abused and assaulted the complainant and his wife. After investigating the matter to some extent only Dharmendra was arrested for this. However, during trial, the complainant and his wife both pulled through witness testimony which included the applicant as well. This made the Special Court to invoke Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC) to issue summons for the appellant to stand trial together with Dharmendra. This did not make the appellant happy at all, hence he sought to quash the summoning order in the High Court but his efforts were rejected; hence they proceeded to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The big questions in this case are: Was the Special Court justified to summon the appellant during the trial based on the evidence? But was the High Court wrong to dismiss the appellant’s objection to that summoning order? LEGAL PROVISION

Two main legal provisions are at work here. First, it is provided under Section 14A(1) of the 1989 Act that one can appeal against any order made by the Special Court under this Act. There is also another provision of the Cr. PC, which allows a court to compel a person to appear for trial in case during the trial, there arises some facts that show that the person had committed an offense and should be tried as the accused.

CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT The appellant of the case, Jitendra Nath Mishra, filed the case with his following main arguments. First he said that it was filed much too late, 4½ months after the supposed event of September 30, 2017. He felt this was a derailment without any justification and further means that the FIR is fake and needs to be disregarded. He also, vividly, pointed out such discrepancies mainly in the testimonies of the complainant (PW-1) and his wife (PW-2). For instance, PW-1 avowed that the accused came in car while PW-2 pointed out that they came on motorcycles. These contradictions made it appear that they were unstable and unreliable in their statements on the same. Further more the appellant’s name was not included in the FIR though the complainant knew the appellant from the year 2015. Here it appeared as if the complainant was drafting him in to the complaint session just to compound his troubles. He also noted that the incident that was alleged to have taken place in a crowded public place at a time when there were many people present no one was called to testify against him as the prosecution had done. To him it was just an attempt to pull him into another trial that is frivolous. CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT .

The State of Uttar Pradesh countered the appellant’s arguments by defending the decisions of both the Special Court and the High Court. They emphasized that the law, as clarified in the Supreme Court’s decision in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, supports the use of Section 319 of the Cr. PC to summon additional accused during a trial if new evidence emerges. The State argued that the Special Court had carefully reviewed the evidence provided by the complainant and his wife before deciding to summon the appellant. They contended that this decision was made properly and legally. Regarding the appellant’s concerns about delays, contradictions, and the lack of public witnesses, the State maintained that these issues could be addressed during the trial itself. They argued that these were not grounds for dismissing the case at this stage. Ultimately, the State supported the High Court’s decision to uphold the summoning order, arguing that there was no need for the Supreme Court to interfere.

JUDGEMENT AND COURT ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the Special Court and the Allahabad High Court. The Court focused on Section 319 of the Cr. PC, which allows a trial court to summon additional accused if evidence suggests their involvement. The Court found that the testimonies of the complainant and his wife provided sufficient grounds for the Special Court to summon the appellant, despite the delay in the FIR and inconsistencies in witness statements. The Court emphasized that these issues should be addressed during the trial, not at this preliminary stage. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court urging a fair and expedited trial

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

WRITTEN BY: ABHISHEK AIYAPPA.