Court need not wait for cross-examination to summon under Section 319 CrPC: SC pulls up High Court for interference in Section 319 Order, Read Judgment

“The word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial.” Reaffirming this principle, the Supreme Court revisited the settled principles governing the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in a case arising from a violent altercation during a volleyball match in Karnal. The appeal, filed by an Army personnel injured in the incident, challenged a High Court decision that had overturned the summoning of certain individuals accused of aiding and threatening him.

The criminal appeal arose from Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10653 of 2024, filed by Satbir Singh, challenging the judgment dated 7th March 2024 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had allowed a criminal revision petition and set aside the order dated 13th September 2021 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, which had permitted summoning of four individuals—Rajesh Kumar, Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit, as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The case stemmed from a violent incident on 9th February 2020 during a volleyball match in Karnal, in which both Satbir Singh and Mukesh sustained injuries. FIRs were registered on both sides. While Mukesh was prosecuted as the principal accused, Satbir Singh sought to implicate the others through his testimony. However, repeated police inquiries had found no evidence against them.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

Satbir Singh, an Army personnel on leave, contended that he was assaulted by Mukesh and his associates following a dispute during a volleyball game. He alleged that Mukesh stabbed him twice with a knife, while Neeraj held him and Sagar and Ankit beat him with lathis and spade handles. Rajesh Kumar was alleged to have instigated the attack and issued threats. After being examined as PW-1 in the Sessions Court, Satbir moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the four individuals as additional accused. He asserted that his eye-witness testimony, corroborated by his medical injuries, was sufficient to justify their trial alongside Mukesh.

The respondents, represented by senior counsel, argued that the medical records did not support Satbir’s allegations against them. Only two knife injuries were recorded—both attributable to Mukesh. No injuries corresponding to blows by blunt objects were noted. Furthermore, multiple independent police inquiries—including those conducted by three Deputy Superintendents of Police and verified by the Superintendent of Police, Karnal—had consistently found no material linking the respondents to the incident. They contended that the altercation was spontaneous, without any prior enmity, and that their presence at the scene was unestablished. The High Court found merit in these arguments and concluded that the evidentiary threshold under Section 319 CrPC had not been met.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the well-settled principles governing the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court recapitulated that: “The word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial.”

It clarified that courts are not required to wait for evidence to be tested by cross-examination before exercising power under Section 319: “The court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination.”

Regarding the degree of satisfaction necessary to summon additional accused, the Court emphasized: “It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.”

The Bench also relied on its recent decision in Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reiterating that: “Section 319 CrPC, which envisages a discretionary power, empowers the court holding a trial to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial.”

However, it cautioned that: “The court... must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned; its satisfaction preceding the order thereunder must be more than prima facie.”

Upon examining the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to apply the settled principles correctly and had reached an erroneous conclusion. Specifically, it noted that Neeraj, the sibling of Mukesh, was named in the initial statement as having held the appellant while Mukesh stabbed him. As for Rajesh, it was alleged that he had issued a threat: “Chaaku maar ke tassali kar di, agar dobaara zinda gaon me ayega to mai goli se uda dunga.”

The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge had rightly applied the Hardeep Singh principles and had formed a satisfaction higher than mere prima facie regarding the involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj.

Rejecting the High Court’s reliance on police reports that found no involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj, the Court remarked: “No conclusive finding can be given that Rajesh and Neeraj were not involved merely on the basis of such reports.”

It further observed that the High Court, although empowered to review the lower court’s decision, should have adopted a more restrained approach: “A ‘hands off’ approach would have been advisable and the correct approach.”

Concluding the matter, the Supreme Court stated: “The conclusion of the Sessions Judge was a plausible conclusion and not an absurd one so as to warrant interference by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.”

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Sessions Judge’s decision to summon Rajesh and Neeraj under Section 319 CrPC. It clarified that its observations were limited to the disposal of the appeal and did not reflect any opinion on their guilt. The Sessions Judge was urged to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law.

Read Judgment @latestlaws.com, click here

Picture Source :