Trial Court can summon additional accused even if name not mentioned in Challan: HC

The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that a trial court is well within its power to summon additional accused even as his name did not figure in the challan presented by an investigating agency in a criminal case.

The high court bench of justice Meenakshi I Mehta observed that charge-sheet submitted regarding the innocence of any person cannot be taken to be the gospel truth and the court is well within its power to “separate the chaff from the grains” to find out the truth regarding the culpability of any person who has not been arrayed as the accused or has not been sent up to face the trial.

“…the same (evidence submitted) need not be of the level to come to the conclusion that if the evidence goes unrebutted, the same would lead to the conviction of the person proposed to be summoned as the additional accused and rather the same has to be just somewhat higher than the one required to be considered at the time of the framing of the charge,” the bench said.

The court dismissed a plea from six persons, who were summoned as additional accused by the court. Their names figured in the FIR but after investigation, their names were dropped. Subsequently, they were summoned as additional accused by the trial court, a decision challenged in the high court in 2018. The FIR was registered on July 10, 2017 for criminal intimidation and under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Complainants, several villagers, belonging to Dalit community in Hansi area of Hisar, had stated that a scuffle broke out between some youngsters from Brahmin and Dalit communities over the turn to get water. Following the registration of an FIR, the accused party, the upper castes, threatened social boycott of the Dalits if they didn’t settle for a compromise. A ‘munadi (declaration)’ was effected that none of the members of Dalit community in the village will enter the fields belonging to the upper castes. Even the dairy owners stopped providing milk to Dalit families, it was alleged.

Subsequently, when a challan was filed, only one person was named as accused by the police. During the trial, a witness reiterated allegations against the lone accused and even others and subsequently, the court ordered summoning of six more named in the FIR.

The accused persons had submitted in high court that allegations against them were based on ‘hearsay’.

Construing the allegations levelled in the FIR and reiterated by the complainant in his depositions as ‘hearsay evidence’ does not suffice at all, the court said, adding that at this stage, clean chit can’t be given to the petitioners at a time when lone accused also faces same set of allegations and is already facing the trial. It also came to light that the manner in which investigations were carried out is already before the Supreme Court.