Conviction Can't Be Based On Evidence Recorded Prior To Summoning Accused U/S 319 CrPC: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently held that evidence recorded in the absence of an accused person, which is relied upon to summon him under Section 319 CrPC, cannot later form the basis of his conviction.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while acquitting a murder accused in connection with a 2008 case.
The trial court had convicted the appellant under Sections 302 r/w Section 149, Section 307 r/w Section 149, Section 148, and Section 506(2) IPC, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. This conviction was based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which were recorded before he was summoned to face trial.
Briefly put, the case relates to the murder of one Vijay Kumar Singh, who succumbed to the gunshot injuries allegedly fired by the 4 accused. In the chargesheet, the appellant (Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Guddu Singh) was not named as the police could not establish his involvement in the incident.
Now, during the trial of the 4 charge-sheeted accused, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed to summon the appellant to face trial and the same was allowed in June 2012.
It may be noted that this S. 319 CrPC application was based on the earlier testimonies of the injured complainant/PW-1 (Pintu Singh), the deceased's uncle (Indrapal Singh; testimony recorded in 2011) and an independent witness (Ajay Kumar Singh; testimony recorded in 2009).
However, as the High Court noted, after the appellant was summoned, PW-1 and the deceased's uncle, who were re-examined in 2013, completely resiled from their previous statements and denied the appellant's involvement in the case.
In fact, PW-1 categorically stated that he had falsely implicated the appellant in his earlier statement under pressure. Also, the independent witness never even came forward to testify again after the appellant was summoned.
Despite this, the trial court went ahead and convicted the appellant by relying on the previous (pre-summoning) statements of the deceased's uncle and the independent witness.
The trial court had reasoned that once the court has acted upon the testimonies to summon the appellant to face trial under Section 319 CrPC, those testimonies cannot be ignored and can form the basis for the appellant's conviction.
The High Court, however, took exception to this reasoning as it noted that the trial court severally erred in relying on the statement of the deceased's uncle implicating the appellant, as it was recorded before the appellant was summoned as an additional accused.
The Division bench noted that this statement cannot be read against the appellant.
"The trial Court has acted on the statement of Indrapal Singh recorded earlier, while the appellant had not been summoned to face the trial, but has ignored the statement of this witness recorded after the appellant was summoned, wherein he categorically stated that the appellant was not involved in the incident," the bench remarked.
The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein it was held that there is no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.
The bench further noted that the trial court had ignored the mandate of Section 273 CrPC, which provides that all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused
"...the evidence recorded when the appellant had not been summoned by the trial Court and he was not present before the trial for this reason, cannot be relied upon by the trial Court," the Court said.
Against this backdrop, noting that there was no other evidence on record to establish the appellant's involvement in the commission of the alleged offence, the bench allowed his appeal and set aside the conviction.
The bench concluded thus : "In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant in the commission of the alleged offences. The trial court has convicted the appellant without adverting to the aforesaid aspect of the matter, which vitiates the finding of the trial court and renders its judgment unsustainable in law".
Case Title: Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Guddu Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 304
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 304