In a significant ruling on the limited scope of summoning additional accused during trial, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision seeking to array a deceased woman’s in-laws as accused in a dowry death case. The Court held that the trial judge had rightly rejected the plea under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), finding no strong evidence beyond suspicion against them.
The decision was delivered by Justice Chawan Prakash while hearing Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the death of Radhika, who was married to Manoj about five years before the incident. Her father, Man Singh, lodged an FIR in January 2020 at Mohabbatpur Painsa police station in Kaushambi district.
Read also:- Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Against Parliamentary Probe Panel
The complaint alleged that Radhika was harassed for additional dowry, including a buffalo and a gold ring. It also accused the husband and his family members father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and a relative of killing her and staging the death as suicide.
Initially, the police registered offences under Sections 498A (cruelty), 304B/302 of the Indian Penal Code (dowry death/murder), and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, after recording statements of nearly 19 witnesses, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet only against the husband, Manoj, concluding that there was no material showing involvement of the other family members.
The Section 319 CrPC Application
During trial, after the statements of two prosecution witnesses-both close relatives of the deceased-were recorded, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC. This provision allows a court to summon a person not already an accused if evidence during trial shows their involvement in the offence.
Read also:- 23 Years on Hold: Supreme Court Questions High Court Delay in Dowry Death Trial, Seeks Full Records
The trial court rejected the application in November 2024. Challenging this, the complainant approached the High Court, arguing that witness testimony clearly indicated the role of the in-laws and that the trial court had ignored settled law.
Court’s Observations
After examining the trial record, the High Court noted that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an “extraordinary power” and must be used with great caution.
“The word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 refers only to evidence recorded during trial, not material collected during investigation,” the Court observed, relying on Constitution Bench judgments of the Supreme Court.
The bench pointed out that during cross-examination, the key prosecution witness himself stated that the demand for dowry was made by the husband alone. Medical evidence showed death by hanging, and the investigating officer had testified that the husband and wife were living separately from other family members.
Read also:- Private Client or State Duty? Allahabad High Court Flags Role of Govt Advocate in Ongoing Case
Justice Prakash underlined that, for summoning additional accused, “mere suspicion or a simple prima facie case is not enough; the evidence must be strong and convincing.”
Decision
Concluding that the trial court had applied the correct legal principles and carefully evaluated the evidence, the High Court found no error in the refusal to summon the in-laws.
“The impugned order has been passed with proper reasoning,” the bench held, dismissing the criminal revision as lacking merit.
With this, the proceedings will continue only against the husband, who already faces trial for dowry-related offences.
Case Title: Man Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 6573 of 2024
