Case Title: Periyasami and Ors v. S. Nallasamy
According to the Supreme Court, Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not allow for the summoning of witnesses based solely on the disclosure of their names to the prosecution during trial.
It was claimed in the complaint made by S. Nallasamy that his in-laws, wife, and other relatives (15 ladies and 35 men) arrived at his residence in automobiles, forcibly entered the premises, and reprimanded him. Sections 147, 448, 294(b), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were used to file an FIR against few of the accused.
In order to summon the 20 defendants (including Periyasami) as additional defendants during the trial, the prosecution submitted an application under Section 319 of the Code. With no direct evidence of their involvement in the house trespass or of having threatened the complainant, the complainant has thus attempted to cast vague charges in order to include many additional people while submitting an application under Section 319 of the Code. Due to the fact that neither the names of the potential accused were included in the First Information Report nor were they discovered throughout the inquiry, the Magistrate declined to summon them. Additionally, it was noticed that neither the FIR nor any of the witnesses identified them at any point during the investigation. The High Court granted the revision petition, noting that witnesses had identified them in their trial depositions.
The husband, who is the Complainant, has made claims against the wife and other members of her family, according to the Apex court bench, who heard the appeal filed by these individuals. An opinion from this Court's Constitution Bench is cited by eminent counsel for the appellants and reliance is placed on the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab to assert that the proof necessary to use the Section 319 of the Code's authority to arraign an accused person should only be used sparingly and when the facts of the case clearly support it.
The court reaffirmed that, under Section 319 of the Code, additional accused can only be summoned if there is more than the minimum amount of prima facie evidence required at the time of the charge's formulation but less than the amount needed at the time of the trial's conclusion to find the accused guilty. Such authority should only be used when there is clear and convincing evidence against a person in the evidence presented to the court, and such authority cannot be carelessly exercised. In the absence of compelling evidence, the court further stated that additional accused cannot be summoned under Section 319 of the Code in a hasty or callous manner. In light of this, the learned High Court's order is set aside, the application made pursuant to Section 319 of the Code is rejected, and the judgement of the trial court is reinstated.