Wife cannot be made co-accused for living with husband involved in crime, strong evidence needed under Section 319 CrPC: Karnataka HC

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the plea of ​​RK Bhat seeking to make Shanti Roche a co-accused in the case registered against her husband Norbert D'Souza for offences punishable under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act.

"The power under Section 319 of CrPC cannot be exercised at the pre-trial stage, as may be done for bringing in another accused. There must be some evidence and some evidence for the trial to commence. It is an admitted fact that the trial in this case has not yet commenced. Moreover, Section 319 of CrPC places a higher standard of evidence against the person who is sought to be impleaded as accused, than what is available at the time of investigation," the court said.

The complainant had filed the application through the prosecution. However, the court rejected it. The petitioner argued that the wife was living with accused No. 2 and 3, who were accused of selling spurious liquor in large quantities. It claimed that the wife of the accused also had equal knowledge of manufacturing, storing and selling spurious liquor.

The prosecution also supported the petitioner's argument.

The bench said that Section 319 of the CrPC allows summoning a person as an additional accused. To summon a person as an additional accused who has either been dropped from the charge sheet or has never been made an accused, there is a need for sufficient evidence to produce him as an accused at the time of filing the charge sheet.

Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court said, "The husband is already accused - accused no. 3. It cannot be said that both the husband and wife should be charged with the same offence, merely because the wife was living with the husband."

It added, "It is also not alleged that the wife was involved in the activities of manufacturing and storing spurious liquor. Merely because she is the wife of accused no. 3, against whom all the allegations have been made, she cannot be held liable for the offence."

Dismissing the plea, the court said, "The application is misconceived and has been filed with an ulterior motive to settle accounts with accused no. 3, that too at the pre-trial stage."