.The appeal filed by the appellant from the judgment of Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court. Justices R. Banumathi and AS Bopanna delivered the same.
The brief facts of the case are that Subhash Chandra Shukla along with Sashendra Shukla, Devender Shukla, Lakshmi Shukla and Rahul Shukla (the other accused) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly. They came to the house of the complainant (Shiv Prakash Mishra) and started abusing him.
The elder brothers of the complainant Sangam Lal Mishra and Sunil Kumar Mishra who were living in the opposite house. They came out and tried to forbid the accused from abusing. The accused Sashendra Shukla then fired a pistol in his hand with the intention to kill Sunil Kumar Mishra.
The FIR registered against the 5 accused under the sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 and 504 IPC.
The charge sheet filed only against three accused persons namely Sashendra Shukla, Devender Shukla, and Laxmi Kant Shukla. Subsequently, upon further investigation, police filed a supplementary charge sheet against accused Rahul Shukla.
Section 319 of the CrPC says if the Court feels that a person should be tried together with the accused. Then that person can be proceeded against. It can be proceed at any stage, during the trial, because of the pieces of evidence.
Shiv Prakash Mishra filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to implead the second respondent, Subhash Chandra Shukla as accused. And during the trial, the application filed. The trial court dismissed the application as there were contradicting statements between the witnesses.
The decision of the Trial Court:
The Trial Court held that as per the complaint, the presence of the proposed accused Subhash Chandra Shukla is doubtful. Because he was at the place of work at District Mirzapur.
The decision of the High Court:
The revision petition preferred by the complainant before the High Court was also dismissed on the ground that there are no materials on record to summon Subhash Chandra Shukla as an accused. This led to the appeal in Supreme Court.
The decision of the Supreme Court:
The SC did note the scope of Section 319 of CrPC. And the section empowers the trial Court to proceed against any person who hasn’t been indicted as accused in the case.
However, the Court also held that to summon accused the standard of proof is higher than what is to be employed for framing a charge against the accused. Hence, the power has to be exercised sparingly.
The Court placed reliance on the judgments in Kailash v. the State of Rajasthan and another [(2008) 14 SCC 51] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/435907/ and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others [(2014) 3 SCC 92] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197706642/
In the light of the above principles, the Court ruled that having regard to the contradictory statements of the witnesses and other circumstances, the trial court, and the High Court had rightly held that courts shall not summon accused Subhash Chandra Shukla.
It, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
Professional, courteous, and attentive – every time.
order lisinopril online
Appreciate their commitment to maintaining global healthcare standards.
Their worldwide delivery system is impeccable.
cytotec costo
Their global network ensures the best medication prices.
Leading with compassion on a global scale.
cost generic clomid without dr prescription
Their flu shots are quick and hassle-free.
A true champion for patients around the world.
where can i buy clomid tablets
Their private consultation rooms are a great addition.
Efficient, effective, and always eager to assist.
will gabapentin show up urine drug test
A global name with a reputation for excellence.