Supreme Court Holds That Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Against an Accused Summoned Under Section 319 CrPC When Evidence Shows Mere Presence Without Any Overt Act or Incriminating Circumstance

Held: The Supreme Court held that a conviction cannot be sustained against an accused who was summoned during trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the evidence only establishes his alleged presence as a driver of a vehicle and does not disclose any overt act, direct participation, or incriminating circumstance connecting him to the commission of the offence.

Summary: The appeal arose from a double murder case of the year 1999 in which the appellant was alleged to have driven the vehicle used by the assailants. Initially found innocent during investigation, the appellant was later summoned under Section 319 CrPC based on trial testimony. The prosecution relied mainly on the statements of the deceased’s father and wife, both of whom only attributed the role of driving the vehicle to the appellant. The Supreme Court scrutinised the evidence and found material omissions in the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, absence of recovery or forensic linkage, lack of identification of the vehicle in court, and testimony of the investigating officer that the appellant was not involved. The Court also noted deep-seated animosity between rival groups and the absence of any proof of common intention or conspiracy involving the appellant.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction of the appellant alone was set aside, the appellant was acquitted of all charges, and it was directed that if he was in custody he be released forthwith and if on bail his bonds be cancelled, while clarifying that the judgment did not affect proceedings against the remaining accused, with all pending applications disposed of.