Not Mandatory To Decide Application U/S. 319 CrPC Before Cross-Examination: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that it is not mandatory to decide the application under Section 319 CrPC before cross-examination of witnesses.
The Court said that the complicity of any person sought to be arrayed as an accused can be decided with or without conducting cross-examination of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal where the accused has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the High Court which allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and after setting aside the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, remanded the case to proceed in a manner where the Trial Court would first decide the Application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereafter proceed to decide the trial.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “…complicity of any person sought to be arrayed as an accused can be decided with or without conducting cross-examination of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, and there is no mandate to decide the application under section 319 CrPC before cross- examination of other witnesses.”
Brief Facts-
The Appellant was accused of attempted kidnapping hence FIR and a subsequent charge-sheet was filed. During trial, the victim and key witnesses testified but repeatedly avoided cross-examination despite Court orders. The victim filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the Appellant’s parents as additional accused, but the witnesses refused to participate in cross-examination until the application was resolved. Frustrated by their absence, the Trial Court closed the prosecution's evidence, rejected the Section 319 application due to lack of admissible evidence, and acquitted the Appellant for insufficient evidence. The High Court later overturned the decision on Appeal. Hence, the present Appeal.
While noting that the prosecution witnesses repeatedly filed adjournment applications and only insisted on deciding the application under section 319 CrPC first and only thereafter the trial could proceed the Court observed, “The complainant has no such mandatory right to insist that an application be decided in such a manner.”
Accordingly, the Court said that the trial Court was correct in proceeding under section 232 CrPC and acquitting the appellant- accused.
Finally, the Court allowed the Appeal.
