Calcutta High Court: While deciding a revision petition seeking to challenge the trial court’s order of rejecting the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to arraign the proposed accused/opposite parties as accused in instant matter, a single-judge bench comprising of Shampa Dutt (Paul), J., dismissed the application and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously. The Court held that the trial court may decide to bring important witnesses into the case during the trial, and applications related to this should be dealt with in accordance with the law.
Factual Matrix
The instant matter stems from a letter of complaint lodged by proposed accused/opposite party 3 with the Officer-in-Charge of Baduria Police Station on 30-12-2015. The complaint led to the registration of a case for alleged offenses under Sections 376(2)(f) of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
During the investigation, the victim minor girl (petitioner) was recovered and kept at Liluah Home. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), in the presence of her paternal Aunt (proposed accused/opposite party 2). Both proposed accused/opposite party 2 and 3 signed as witnesses during the medical examination of the petitioner.
The victim girl allegedly never had a reasonable opportunity to divulge the actual incident before any authority. On 08-02-2016, the victim girl was handed over to her elder sister and brother-in-law, after which she disclosed the true facts of the case to her elder sister.
On 02-04-2016, the court ordered the recording of a second judicial statement of the petitioner under Section 164 of the CrPC. The charge sheet submitted by the investigating agency named accused as brother of the victim and father of the victim and cited proposed accused/opposite party 2 and 3 as witnesses to the incident. The charges against the accused persons were framed, and the trial commenced on 22-01-2019, with the petitioner as PW-1.
During the petitioner’s testimony, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of the CrPC, seeking to arraign the proposed accused/opposite parties as accused in the case. The application was rejected by the trial court. The trial court cited contradictions in the victim’s testimony and the charge sheet and expressed the need to examine another witness, before considering the application under Section 319.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the rejection of the application under Section 319 of the CrPC, filed a revision petition challenging the order.
Moot Point
Whether the rejection of the application under Section 319 of the CrPC was justified?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the rejection of the application under Section 319 was erroneous because the petitioner’s second statement recorded under Section 164 and her examination-in-chief supported the case against the proposed accused/opposite parties.
The petitioner claimed that the trial court failed to appreciate the purpose of Section 319, which allows the court to proceed against any person appearing to be guilty of an offense in the course of an inquiry or trial.
It was further argued that the trial court’s observation regarding the investigating officer considering the second statement of the petitioner before filing the charge sheet was incorrect, as the statement was not considered.
Legal Point
Section 319 of the CrPC provides for the power of the court to proceed against persons not initially accused but who appear to have committed offenses in the course of an inquiry or trial.
Court’s Assessment
The Court referred to Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 5 SCC 337, where the Supreme Court held that “Court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the Courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid trial is so strong that an accused makes efforts at times to get himself absolved even at the stage of investigation or inquiry even though he may be connected with the commission of the offence.”
The Court observed that the purpose of Section 319 of the CrPC is to discover the truth, ensuring that the innocent are not wrongly punished and the guilty are not allowed to escape justice.
“The purpose of Section 319 CrPC is to find the truth so that the innocent is not punished and also to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished.”
The Court observed that the exercise of the power under Section 319 should be done sparingly and based on strong and cogent evidence rather than mere probability of complicity. The Court should be cautious to ensure that witnesses providing evidence against additional accused persons are not motivated by revenge or influenced by others.
The Court observed that in cases where the testimony of a witness implicates different individuals at different times with the same allegations, the possibility of seeking revenge or being influenced by others should be considered.
The Court held that the trial court may decide to bring important witnesses into the case during the trial, and applications related to this should be dealt with in accordance with the law.
Court’s Decision
The Court, after considering the arguments and legal principles, affirmed the order under revision. The Court held that the order was in accordance with the law and required no further interference. The revisional application was dismissed, and the court directed the Special Judge to proceed with the trial expeditiously. All connected applications were disposed of, and any interim orders were vacated.
[Rabia Khatun v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3071, order dated 26-09-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Mr. Safdar Azam, Mr. Syed Wasim Faruque, Mr. Jyotirmoy Talukder, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. S. G. Mukerji, Ld. P.P, Ms. Faria Hossain, Ms. Baisali Basu, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
