Legal News and Insight around the Globe!

Allahabad HC: Evidence from Investigation Must be Considered in Section 319 Proceedings

LI Network

Published on: 26 January , 2024 at 10:05 IST

The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that in cases filed under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which involves summoning a new set of accused persons while exonerating the original accused, evidence collected by the Investigating Officer (IO) during the investigation should be considered alongside the evidence presented during the trial.

In a criminal revision challenging the order of the Additional District and Session Judge in a case under Section 319 of the CrPC, where some individuals were summoned to stand trial under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with the existing accused, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra emphasized the importance of taking into account the investigative process and the reasons behind exonerating certain individuals while charging others based on evidence collected during the investigation.

The Court stated that the primary objective of Section 319 of the CrPC is to ensure that the actual offender does not evade punishment.

The case stemmed from an FIR filed by the informant, alleging that her husband and his friend were shot by individuals in a car while returning from a market.

The Investigating Officer initially named seven accused persons but later filed charges against seven others based on evidence gathered during the investigation.

The High Court observed that the lower court failed to discuss the investigative process, the evidence collected, and the reasons behind exonerating certain individuals while charging others. It stressed that the doctrine behind Section 319 CrPC, “judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted,” should guide the court in ensuring justice by punishing the actual perpetrator.

The Court highlighted the Court’s duty to uphold the rule of law and stated that the court possesses the power to call the real culprit to stand trial, even if not initially named by the investigating agency.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the Trial Court’s order, and remitted the matter for further consideration.