Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rama Singh vs State Of U.P on 18 March, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1333 OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP(CRL.) No.4970/2023]
RAMA SINGH APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned senior counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The question that falls for consideration is whether
or not the summoning of the appellant under Section 319 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the
“Cr.P.C.”) to face trial in the case arising out of Case
Crime No.98/2014 under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the “IPC”), registered
at Police Station Kharela, District Mahoba, is justified
in law.
4. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, on
11.03.2014 at about 4.30 p.m., the complainant and his
associates, including Bharat Kumar Tiwari, Ram Milan @
Chainu, Pradeep Kumar and Lakhan Lal Tiwari together went
to the fields situated at Basani area at Pahreta Mauza.
The farmhouse of one of the accused Raju Singh @ Avnendra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Singh (who is husband of the appellant) is also there in
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.03.24
17:08:34 IST
Reason:
those fields, where the said Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh,
1
the appellant, Raghvendra Singh, Ram Singh and one unknown
person were sitting on the roof. One person was armed with
DBBL Gun and on seeing the complainant and his associates,
the accused person allegedly started indiscriminate
firing. The gun-shot fired by Raju Singh hit Chainu Nai.
Raghvendra Singh allegedly fired from his mouser and the
appellant (Smt. Rama Singh) is also alleged to have fired
gun-shot. The firing led to fatal injuries to Bharat Kumar
Tiwari, who was brought to the District Hospital Mahoba in
injured condition and was declared dead. In the post
mortem report dated 12.03.2014, the doctor found two gun-
shot injuries being an entry wound with an exit on the
body of the deceased. The cause of death was opined as
“haemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem gun-shot injury”.
Chainu Nai was medically examined on 11.03.2014 at
Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi where he was
provisionally diagnosed as having firearm injury on right
shoulder. He was provided treatment. He was found to have
had fracture of clavicle.
5. After investigation, charge-sheet no.40/2014 dated
10.06.2014 was filed against Ram Singh @ Ramu Singh under
Section 302/307 of IPC. So far as the appellant (Smt. Rama
Singh) and her father-in-law (Raghvendra Singh) are
concerned, their implication was found to be false and as
such their names were ordered to be deleted. The husband
of the appellant, namely, Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh was
found absconding and as such proceedings under Section 83
2
of Cr.P.C. were drawn against him.
6. It seems that eventually the Investigating Officer
came to a conclusion that Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh, the
appellant as well as her father-in-law Raghvendra Singh –
all were falsely implicated and submitted Report
No.55/2015 in this regard.
7. Meanwhile, the charges against the main accused were
framed and the trial commenced. The statements of PW-1
(Pushpraj Singh), PW-2 (Lakhan Lal) and PW-3 (Chainu Nai)
were recorded. While the statement of Chainu Nai was still
being recorded, the complainant (respondent no.2) moved an
application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on 20.07.2017 for
summoning of the appellant and her husband (Raju Singh @
Avnendra Singh) as additional accused to face trial under
Sections 302 and 307 of IPC.
8. It may be noticed at this stage that the complainant
had filed a Protest Petition against the Final Report
No.55/2015. That Protest Petition was allowed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 07.11.2015. The
Sessions Judge, however, vide order dated 03.09.2016 set
aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
It seems that the Chief Judicial Magistrate thereafter
passed another order on 14.06.2019 directing further
investigation. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by
the appellant and her husband before the High Court as
their petitions laying challenge to that order came to be
dismissed on 05.11.2019.
3
9. Be that as it may, pursuant to the order of further
investigation, a supplementary report bearing Parcha No.20
dated 20.09.2019 was filed. The operative part whereof
reads as follows:
“It is proved that Sonu Singh alias Pushparaj
Singh along with his accompalices who were of
criminal tendency went to Raju Singh’s
farmhouse armed with weapons in unanimity,
unconsciously and fired. From further
analysis, there does not seem to be any
intention of murder and criminal conspiracy of
Avnendra alias Raju Singh. Nor has any solid
evidence of attempt to murder against Avnendra
alias Raju Singh been received from the
further investigation so far. In a serious
crime like murder, it is not justifiable to
prove the allegation without evidence.
Avnendra Singh alias Raju Singh, Rama Singh,
wife of Raju Singh, Raghavendra Singh have not
been found to be involved in the above
mentioned incident in any way and involved in
criminal conspiracy. And the presence of
Raghavendra Singh, Rama Singh has not been
found at the spot. During investigation, the
above nomination was found to be incorrect.
The entire work of evidence collection has
been done in the above indictment by the
former IO. Now there is no action left.
Further investigation is closed confirming the
proceedings of evidence collection related to
the above case by the former investigator Mr.
RB Singh and confirming the final report sent
against the opposite party Avnendra Singh
alias Raju Singh, Ramasingh, Raghavendra
Singh.”
10. A perusal of the aforesaid report would reveal that
statements of some more alleged eye-witnesses were
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and those were
referred to by the Investigating Officer in support of the
conclusion drawn by him, as reproduced above. It is,
however, not necessary for us to refer to those statements
4
or consider their reliability.
11. As noticed earlier, the application for summoning
the appellant and her husband as additional accused was
moved on 20.07.2017. The Trial Court, for the reasons best
known to it, kept the said application pending for more
than 4 years and finally allowed it vide order dated
28.10.2021.
12. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant
and her husband before the High Court through two separate
petitions and both came to be dismissed vide the impugned
judgment dated 16.03.2023.
13. We may, at the outset, also take note of the
preliminary objections raised by Shri Rajul Bhargava,
learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 regarding
maintainability of the instant appeal. In this regard, he
has referred to the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by this
Court in SLP(Crl.) No.5054/2023, which was filed by the
husband of the appellant and was dismissed being withdrawn
by counsel for the petitioner therein with liberty to
raise all the contentions before the Trial Court at an
appropriate stage. Shri Bhargava, thus, has urged that
since both husband and wife were summoned on the basis of
same set of evidence and the impugned order qua the
appellant’s husband stands upheld, the instant appeal is
also liable to be met with the same fate.
14. With respect to the aforesaid objection re:
maintainability, we do not find any merit therein. We say
5
so for the reason that firstly the husband of the
appellant was found to be absconding, which was taken as a
strong circumstance inferring his implication. Secondly,
the supplementary investigation report dated 20.09.2019
absolved the appellant and her father-in-law on the ground
that both were not found present at the time of
occurrence. There is no such categorical finding of fact
recorded qua the husband of the appellant. These two
factors draw distinction between what is attributed to the
appellant’s husband, namely, Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh
vis-a-vis the allegations against the appellant. We may
hasten to add that the father-in-law of the appellant,
namely, Raghvendra Singh has unfortunately died and the
issue qua him has become infructuous.
15. Adverting to the merits of the impugned order of the
Trial Court, the question that arises for further
consideration is whether it was imperative and obligatory
upon the Trial Court to consider the entire ‘material’ and
‘evidence’ that had been brought on record after filing of
the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on 20.07.2017
and till the Trial Court took a decision thereupon after
more than four years on 28.10.2021? Shri Bhargava urges
that except the statements of three prosecution witnesses,
namely, PW-1 to PW-3, there was no ‘evidence’ on record
before the Trial Court which could be taken into account
for the purpose of formation of an opinion under Section
319 of Cr.P.C.
6
16. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned senior counsel for the
appellant strongly refutes such claim. According to her,
once the Chief Judicial Magistrate in exercise of
statutory powers under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. had
directed further investigation and pursuant thereto, if a
supplementary report had been brought on record, it is
obligatory upon the Trial Court to consider the material
contained in such report along with the conclusions that
may have been drawn by the Investigating Officer. She
submits that it is the prerogative of the Trial Court to
accept or discard the material brought on record, but to
completely overlook that report, while summoning the
appellant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to face trial, was
impermissible in law.
17. We may hasten to add that both sides have heavily
relied upon certain paragraphs of the Constitutional Bench
decision of this Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of
Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92. It is urged on behalf
of the appellant that power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
is a discretionary and an extraordinary power which ought
to be exercised sparingly and only in those circumstances
where the case so warrant. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned
senior counsel explains that there cannot be a summoning
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. only on the basis of
formation of a prima facie opinion unless there is much
stronger evidence than a mere probability of the
appellant’s complexity. According to her, the litmus test
7
laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh
(supra) has not been applied at all by the Trial Court.
18. In this regard, Ms. Madhavi Divan has further relied
upon Juhru vs. Karim, (2023) 5 SCC 406, where, while
explaining the import and true meaning of the principles
evolved by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh
(supra), this Court laid down as follows:
“16. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint
reading of the cited decisions that power of
summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to
be exercised routinely and the existence of
more than a prima facie case is sine quo non to
summon an additional accused. We may hasten to
add that with a view to prevent the frequent
misuse of power to summon additional accused
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity
with the binding judicial dictums referred to
above, the procedural safeguard can be that
ordinarily the summoning of a person at the
very threshold of the trial may be discouraged
and the trial court must evaluate the evidence
against the persons sought to be summoned and
then adjudge whether such material, more or
less, carry the same weightage and value as has
been testified against those who are already
facing trial. In the absence of any credible
evidence, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
ought not to be invoked.
19. As regard to Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e.,
Sonam (sister-in-law), and Rijwan (brother-in-
law) of the deceased, it appears to us that
despite both of them being named in the FIR and
in the examination-in-chief of Respondent No.1,
there is no credible evidence to connect them
with the unnatural death of Rukseena. There is
no cogent material that Appellant No. 2, even
after her marriage with Appellant No. 3,
continued to reside in her parents’ house or
that they used to inter-meddle in the day to
day marital life of the deceased and Aamir. In
the absence of any authentic evidence to bring
them in close proximity of the reported crime,
it would be unjustified to call upon Appellant
Nos. 2 and 3 to face trial as additional
accused in this case.”
8
19. Reliance has also placed in Brijendra Singh and
others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 and some
other decisions of this Court, which are not necessary to
be referred to, so as to avoid multiplicity.
20. Contrarily, Shri Bhargava, learned senior counsel
for the respondent no.2 – complainant refers to paragraphs
78 and 85 of the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep
Singh (supra), besides the conclusion drawn in paragraph
117.1, 117.2 and 117.3 of the report.
21. We have considered the submissions in this regard.
Keeping in view the nature of order which we propose to
pass, it is clarified, in no uncertain terms that we are
not expressing any opinion on merits of the application
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. moved by respondent no.2. We
are, however, of the view that the Trial Court as well as
the High Court have erred while overlooking the settled
principles of law and the vigorous conditions that are to
be applied mandatorily while passing an order of summoning
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The cited judgments speak for
themselves and there is no need to re-state what has
already been settled. All that we would like to emphasize
is that if there is a lawfully collected ‘material’ or
‘evidence’ brought on record after filing of an
application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and before the
Court forms an opinion in relation thereto, such
‘material’ or ‘evidence’ cannot be overlooked and its
9
effect and impact ought to be taken into account for the
purpose of formation of the opinion. Such a recourse
having not been adopted in the instant case, the impugned
orders do not fall within the contours of Section 319 of
Cr.P.C.
22. For the reasons aforestated, the instant appeal is
allowed in part. The impugned orders of the Trial Court as
well as the High Court are set aside. The Trial Court is
directed to decide the application moved by respondent
no.2 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. qua the appellant (only)
afresh and in accordance with law. The parties shall be at
liberty to raise their respective contentions before the
Trial Court which shall be considered in accordance with
law.
23. The occurrence took place in 2014. More than 10
years have passed, however, the trial is yet to reach at
an effective stage. It is well known that in the event of
acceptance of an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.,
the trial has to recommence once again. The Trial Court is
consequently directed to decide the application afresh
within two months. In this regard, learned Trial Court
counsel for the parties are directed to extend full
cooperation to the Trial Court.
24. For the sake of clarity, it is clarified that the
instant order shall not give a fresh cause of action in
favour of the appellant’s husband to challenge his
summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. However, he shall
10
be entitled to raise all his contentions before the Trial
Court at an appropriate stage in terms of liberty granted
by this Court in order dated 08.05.2023 passed in
SLP(Crl.) No.5054/2023.
25. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial
Court on 17.04.2025.
....................J.
(SURYA KANT)
....................J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 18, 2025
11
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.3 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4970/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-03-2023
in A482 No.25601/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
RAMA SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 69442/2024 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 33913/2024
- APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 240984/2023 - APPLICATION FOR
PERMISSION, IA No. 79668/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA
No.69441/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 18-03-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Petitioner(s) :Mrs. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Yogendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aishani Narain, Adv.
Ms. Sneha Singh, Adv.
Ms. Andrita, Adv.
Mr. Ramjee Pandey, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR
Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv.
Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Rajul Bhargava, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kartikeya Bhargava, AOR
Mr. Jasir Aftab, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in part in terms of the signed order.
3. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file) 12 13