Strong Evidence Is Needed Than The Mere Probability, To Prima Facie Show The Involvement Of Persons : Gauhati High Court

"319.Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

The High Court held that the power of the trial court to summon any person as an accused to face a trial if it appears from evidence that such person has committed any offence can be exercised at any stage during the trial under section 319 CrPC.

However, the High Court also noted a line of caution that such power should be exercised only where there is strong and cogent evidence on record to form a prima facie opinion. The Law is settled that much stronger evidence is required which is more than a prima facie case at the tome of framing of charge than the mere probability, to invoke the provision under section 319 CrPC.

"there is no denial that power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised by the learned trial Court at any stage during the trial to summon any person as an accused to face the trial if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence, for which such person could be tried together. There is however, line of caution that it should not be used mechanically, but only when there is strong and cogent evidence on record to form a prima facie opinion, than the mere probability or complicity."

The petitioner who is also the informant in the said case, contended that while accepting the charge sheet, no notice was issued to her and during the course of the trial, she had stated the names of few persons who she seeks to be added as additional accused to face the trial by invoking section 319 CrPC.

However, the High Court refused to interfere in the matter as it agrees with the learned trial court to not summon the persons as additional accused, even though their names has been mentioned in the FIR as the Investigating Officer found no material against them in order to charge sheet them. Moreover, the petitioner did not challenge the finding of the IO before the trial court until the fag end of the trail, where even the statements of the accused persons under section 313 CrPC has already been recorded.

Therefore, the High Court found no error in the impugned order of the learned trial court and accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.