JUHRU & ORS versus KARIM & ANR.

JUHRU & ORS versus KARIM & ANR.

The Court held that Section 319 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised routinely and requires more than a prima facie case; on the facts, appellant No.1 was properly summoned because PW-1 deposed that he demanded Rs.20 lakhs and lived with the other accused, satisfying ingredients of Section 319, but there was no credible evidence connecting appellant Nos.2 and 3 with the death, so the High Court order was set aside as to them; appeal partly allowed and trial to proceed against appellant No.1 in accordance with the guidelines in Sukhpal Singh Khaira.

Parties
Appellants: JUHRU & ORS.; Respondents: KARIM & ANR.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Under Section 319 Cr.p.c. Summoning Additional Accused; Trial at Defence Evidence Stage
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Section 319 Cr.p.c., Summoning Additional Accused, Dowry Death (section 304 B Ipc), Standards of Evidence for Summoning
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Section 319 Cr.p.c. Summoning Additional Accused Dowry Death (section 304 B Ipc) Standards of Evidence for Summoning

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JUHRU & ORS.

Appellants

KARIM & ANR.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Under Section 319 Cr.p.c. Summoning Additional Accused; Trial at Defence Evidence Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence to summon the appellants as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 What standard of evidence is required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
  3. 3 Whether appellants Nos.2 and 3 should have been summoned given the material on record

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Section 319 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised routinely and requires more than a prima facie case; on the facts, appellant No.1 was properly summoned because PW-1 deposed that he demanded Rs.20 lakhs and lived with the other accused, satisfying ingredients of Section 319, but there was no credible evidence connecting appellant Nos.2 and 3 with the death, so the High Court order was set aside as to them; appeal partly allowed and trial to proceed against appellant No.1 in accordance with the guidelines in Sukhpal Singh Khaira.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • High Court order dated 27.01.2020 set aside qua Appellant Nos. 2 and 3
  • Summoning of Appellant No.1 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. upheld and he shall be tried along with the other accused or as directed by the Trial Court