SANDEEP KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

SANDEEP KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

The High Court's order setting aside the trial court's summons was incorrect; the trial court rightly summoned the three persons under Section 319 CrPC because an eyewitness (PW-9) in his examination-in-chief implicated them; the merits of the evidence are to be tested at trial and not at the Section 319 stage, and membership of an unlawful assembly can attract liability under Section 149 IPC without proof of a specific overt act.

Parties
Appellant: Sandeep Kumar; Respondent: The State of Haryana; Respondent: Ramesh Gandhi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order in Revision Arising From Summoning of Additional Accused Under Section 319 Cr PC
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 02.03.2022 set aside
Legal Topics
Section 319 Cr PC, Summoning Additional Accused, Section 149 IPC, Unlawful Assembly, Trial Procedure
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Section 319 Cr PC Summoning Additional Accused Section 149 IPC Unlawful Assembly Trial Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandeep Kumar

Appellant

The State of Haryana

Respondent

Ramesh Gandhi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order in Revision Arising From Summoning of Additional Accused Under Section 319 Cr PC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court correctly exercised power under Section 319 CrPC to summon persons named in the FIR but not in the chargesheet
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in allowing revision and setting aside the trial court's order on the basis that the revisionist was found innocent during investigation and had fled the spot
  3. 3 Whether mere presence as member of an unlawful assembly is sufficient to attract liability under Section 149 IPC

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's order setting aside the trial court's summons was incorrect; the trial court rightly summoned the three persons under Section 319 CrPC because an eyewitness (PW-9) in his examination-in-chief implicated them; the merits of the evidence are to be tested at trial and not at the Section 319 stage, and membership of an unlawful assembly can attract liability under Section 149 IPC without proof of a specific overt act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 02.03.2022 set aside

Orders

  • Order of the High Court dated 02.03.2022 in CRR No.452 of 2021 set aside
  • Trial court's order summoning the three persons (including Ramesh Gandhi) under Section 319 CrPC sustained