[Cites 30, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
1 CRR-4319-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4319 of 2025
DEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S Raghuwanshi along with Shri Ankur Maheshwari -
Advocate for the Applicant No. 1 to 4.
Shri Vijay Kumar Jha and Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi, learned
counsel for the applicant No.5.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya- Government Advocate appearing for
respondents/State.
Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Reserved on: 23.03.2026
Passed on: 25.03.2026
ORDER
(1) With the consent of the parties matter is heard finally.
(2) The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 438/442
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as
"BNSS"] challenging the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Seventh
Additional Sessions Judge Morena District Morena MP in Sessions Trial No.
84/2023 whereby, the application filed by the prosecution under section 319
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafer referred to as "CrPC"]
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
2 CRR-4319-2025
is allowed and summons have been issued for the appearance of the
applicants by arraigning them as accused in trial of crime No. (276 of 2022
or 1560/2024) for commission of offense under sections 302, 307, 294, 147,
148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as "IPC"]
along with other co-accused persons.
(3) Brief facts leading to filing of the instant criminal revision as are
discernible from the records are as under:-
(3.1) As per the prosecution story, on the basis of dehati nalishi made
by complainant respondent No. 2, an FIR bearing crime No. 276/2022 has
been registered at police station Mata Basaiya District Morena on 09.12.2022
for commission of offenses punishable under Sections 302, 307, 294, 147,
148, 149 IPC wherein, the applicants herein have also been arraigned as
accused. In dehati nalishi, the complainant/respondent No. 2 alleged that on
08.12.2022, he and his cousin Braj Kishore Singh along with his nephew
Sandeep went to their agricultural field at about 11:00 PM. At that time,
suddenly, accused/applicant No. 5 - Dharmveer armed with 12 bore rifle,
applicant No. 1 - Devendra Singh armed with Mouser, applicant No.3 -
Digvijay Singh armed with lathi, Madan armed with lathi, Hemraj armed
with lathi, Shivram armed with lathi, Ram Avtar alias Bunty armed with
lathi, applicant No.4 Surendra armed with 12 bore rifle, Bhima alias Anirudh
Singh armed with lathi, Shyamu armed with lathi came on the place of
incident and on account of previous enmity started hurling abusive words.
Thereupon, Dharamveer, Devendra, Ramraj, Surendra Singh with intention
to kill fired upon the victims causing gunshot injuries to Sandeep who died
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
3 CRR-4319-2025
on spot. The victims tried to flee away but the accused persons also followed
them and caused indiscriminate fire. When the complainant Dalveer Singh
shouted then Deviram and Malkhan Singh came on the place of incident and
they have witnessed the incident. In such manner, FIR was lodged against 14
accused persons including the present applicants. During the course of
investigation, the prosecution collected material and initially filed a charge
sheet on 25.02.2023 against accused Ram Roop, Brij Kishore and Ramraj
and the investigation in respect of other co-accused remained pending in
terms of Section 173(8) CrPC. On 27.04.2023, charges were framed against
three accused persons namely Ram Roop, Brij Kishore and Ramraj. The
Court statement of complainant Dalveer Singh (PW-1) was recorded on
01.12.2023 wherein, he categorically deposed against the present applicants
as well. On 01.12.2023 itself, an application under section 319 CrPC was
filed by the prosecution for summoning 11 other persons including the
present applicants as co-accused in the matter on the ground that since they
have been named in the FIR so also, in the court statement of complainant
Dalbir Singh.
(3.2) On 05.08.2024, supplementary charge sheet (Annexure P-4) was
filed wherein, the names of the present applicants were separated on the
ground that during the investigation, on the basis of mobile tower locations
and statements of certain witnesses, they were not found to be present at the
place of incident. However in the said charge-sheet, the offence was found to
be proved against remaining accused namely, Ramavtar, Shyam Kishore,
Hemraj Singh Parihar, Aniruddh Singh alias Bhima and other accused,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
4 CRR-4319-2025
namely, Madan Singh and Shivram. In respect of accused persons namely
Madan Singh and Shivram, the charge sheet was filed under section 299 of
CrPC by declaring them as absconder. Madan Singh and Shivram were
subsequently arrested and another supplementary charge sheet against them
was filed on 29.08.2024.
(3.3) The present applicants filed their reply objecting to the
application under section 319 CrPC filed by the prosecution, however, the
said application filed by the prosecution came to be allowed vide order dated
14.08.2025 which is impugned in the present writ petition.
(4) The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants by
referring to the Dehati Nalishi submits that though, the names of the present
applicants were mentioned in the same, however, the said Dehati Nalishi
states that Deviram and Malkhan Singh were also eyewitnesses to the
incident in question. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants
submits that in their statements recorded under section 161 CrPC, Deviram
and Malkhan Singh deposed nothing against the present applicants. He
submits that the CSP, Morena, District Morena submitted a report to the
Superintendent of Police, Morena on 04.07.2024 indicating that on the basis
of mobile tower location, certain statements of the witnesses and other
material collected on record during investigation, the present applicants were
not found on the place of incident and accordingly recommended for removal
of their names from the case in question and in furtherance whereof, in the
first supplementary charge sheet filed on 05.08.2024, the names of the
applicants were removed from the offenses in question. He further submits
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
5 CRR-4319-2025
that the application under Section 319 of CrPC was filed by the prosecution
on 11.12.2023, i.e. on the date when the statement of Dalveer Singh (PW-1)
was recorded and on the said date, the investigation against the present
applicants was still pending and therefore, the application under Section 319
CrPC filed on the said date was itself premature and not maintainable. He
further submits that once the prosecution itself had decided to remove the
names of the applicants from the offense in question and not to file challan
against them then, merely on the basis of statement of Dalveer Singh (PW-
1), the application under Section 319 CrPC could not have been filed. In
support of his contention, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
applicants places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706, by reference to
Para 15, and submits that for arraigning the accused by invoking Section 319
of CrPC, there has to be something more than prima facie material.
However, in the instant case, the said legal aspect has been ignored by the
learned trial court. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants
also places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Hardeep Singh vs. Union of India; (2014) 3 SCC 92 with reference to Para
94 and 112.
(5) The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants further
submits that it was their specific case before the learned trial court that the
entire family of the applicants is sought to be falsely implicated as, the
complainant in the case is an accused of murder of one Sachin Parihar S/o
Ramroop Singh Parihar and Ramroop Singh Parihar is also an accused in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
6 CRR-4319-2025
present case and in order to overcome charge sheet filed in Crime No.
231/2022 registered at Police Station Mata Basaiya, the present false FIR has
been registered against all family members. Accordingly, he submits that the
revision deserves to be allowed and the order impugned deserves to be
quashed.
(6) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State as
well as the complainant/respondent No. 2, by referring to the documents
available on record and the reasons assigned by the learned trial court in the
order impugned, submits that there is named FIR against the present
applicants. The investigating officer initially tried to remove the names of
the present applicants merely on the basis of tower locations of the
respective mobiles of the applicants, which is not a conclusive evidence for
coming to the conclusion as regards false implication or no overt act on the
part of the present applicants in view of the specific statements made by the
complainant Dalveer Singh (PW-1) in court on 01.12.2023 so also, the other
corroborating evidence like statements of witnesses recorded under Section
161 CrPC and specific mention of the names of the present applicants in the
Dehati Nalishi as well as FIR.
(7) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submits
that the story of false implication developed by the applicants on the ground
that the deceased succumbed to the injuries caused by his own firearm is not
supported by the post-mortem report, which specifically reveals three
gunshot injuries on the person of deceased. He submits that these are the
matters which are required to be established during the course of trial. Even
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
7 CRR-4319-2025
the plea of alibi taken by the respondents on the strength of mobile tower
locations/they being at places other than the place of incident, are the matters
of trial. At the present stage, the learned trial court was of the opinion that
there is sufficient material so as to subject the applicants to trial in
question along with other co-accused and accordingly, the application has
been allowed. The counsels appearing for the respondents also placed
reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Hardeep Singh vs. Union of India; (2014) 3 SCC 92.
(8) No other point has been pressed.
(9) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(10) The scope, applicability and the power of the Trial Court to
arraign an accused not named in the FIR or though named in the FIR but not
charge-sheeted has been authoritatively dealt with by the Hon'ble
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra).
In the aforesaid case, the following questions were referred for consideration
by the Constitution Bench as follows:-
"(i) What is the stage at which power under Section 319
CrPC can be exercised?
(ii) Whether the word "evidence" used in Section
319(1) CrPC could only mean evidence tested by cross-
examination or the court can exercise the power under
the said provision even on the basis of the statement
made in the examination-in-chief of the witness
concerned?
(iii) Whether the word "evidence" used in Section
319(1) CrPC has been used in a comprehensive sense
and includes the evidence collected during investigation
or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence
recorded during trial?
(iv) What is the nature of the satisfaction required to
invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC to arraign an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
8 CRR-4319-2025
accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1)
CrPC can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that
the accused summoned will in all likelihood be
convicted?
(v) Does the power under Section 319 CrPC extend to
persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but
not charged or who have been discharged?"
(11) The powers of the court to proceed under Section 319 of CrPC
even against those persons who are not arraigned as accused cannot be
disputed. This provision is meant to achieve the objective that the real culprit
should not get away unpunished. Paras 8, 12, 13, and 19 of the judgment in
the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra) reads as under:
"8. The constitutional mandate under Articles 20 and 21
of the Constitution of India provides a protective
umbrella for the smooth administration of justice
making adequate provisions to ensure a fair and
efficacious trial so that the accused does not get
prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try
him for the offence but at the same time also gives
equal protection to victims and to the society at large to
ensure that the guilty does not get away from the
clutches of law. For the empowerment of the courts to
ensure that the criminal administration of justice works
properly, the law was appropriately codified and
modified by the legislature under CrPC indicating as to
how the courts should proceed in order to ultimately
find out the truth so that an innocent does not get
punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to
book under the law. It is these ideals as enshrined under
the Constitution and our laws that have led to several
decisions, whereby innovating methods and progressive
tools have been forged to find out the real truth and to
ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished.
12. Section 319 CrPC springs out of the doctrine judex
damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned
when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used
as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the
spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 CrPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
9 CRR-4319-2025
13. It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing
the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any
reason does not array one of the real culprits as an
accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said
accused to face trial. The question remains under what
circumstances and at what stage should the court
exercise its power as contemplated in Section 319
CrPC?
19. The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty
is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it
will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such
powers with the courts in our criminal justice system
where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at
times, get away by manipulating the investigating
and/or the prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid trial
is so strong that an accused makes efforts at times to get
himself absolved even at the stage of investigation or
inquiry even though he may be connected with the
commission of the offence."
[Emphasis Supplied]
(12) In Hardeep Singh's case , the Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court has also settled the controversy on the issue as to whether the word
"evidence" used in Section 319(1) of CrPC has been used in a
comprehensive sense and indicates the evidence collected during the
investigation, or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded
during trial. Upon considering the same, the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh
(supra) held that it is that material, after cognizance is taken by the court, that
is available to the Court while making an enquiry into or trying an offence,
which the court can utilize or take into consideration for supporting reasons
to summon any person on the basis of evidence adduced before the court.
Moreover, the word "evidence" has to be understood in its wider sense, both
at the stage of trial and even at the stage of inquiry. It means that the power
to proceed against any person after summoning him can be exercised on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
10 CRR-4319-2025
basis of any such material as brought forth before it. In the same judgment, it
has been also held by the Apex Court that the duty and obligation on the
court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers consciously on such
material after evidence has been led during trial. The Apex Court also
clarified that "evidence" under Section 319 of CrPC could even be
examination-in-chief and the court is not required to wait till such evidence is
tested on cross-examination, as it is the satisfaction of the court which can be
gathered from the reasons recorded by the court in respect of complicity of
some other person not facing trial in the offense.
(13) The constitution bench of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep
Singh (supra) accordingly, answered the questions referred in the following
manner:
"117. We accordingly sum up our conclusions as
follows:
Questions (i) and (iii)
-- What is the stage at which power under Section 319
CrPC can be exercised?
and
-- Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1)
CrPC has been used in a comprehensive sense and
includes the evidence collected during investigation or
the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded
during trial?
Answer
117.1. In Dharam Pal case [Dharam Pal v. State of
Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC 306 : AIR 2013 SC 3018] , the
Constitution Bench has already held that after
committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken
against a person not named as an accused but against
whom materials are available from the papers filed by
the police after completion of the investigation. Such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
11 CRR-4319-2025
cognizance can be taken under Section 193 CrPC and
the Sessions Judge need not wait till "evidence" under
Section 319 CrPC becomes available for summoning an
additional accused.
117.2. Section 319 CrPC, significantly, uses two
expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) inquiry
(2) trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge,
an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial
inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 CrPC,
and under Section 398 CrPC are species of the inquiry
contemplated by Section 319 CrPC. Materials coming
before the court in course of such inquiries can be used
for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court
after the trial commences, for the exercise of power
under Section 319 CrPC, and also to add an accused
whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the
charge-sheet.
11 7 . 3 . In view of the above position the word
"evidence" in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly
understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought
during a trial.
Question (ii)--Whether the word "evidence" used in
Section 319(1) CrPC could only mean evidence tested
by cross-examination or the court can exercise the
power under the said provision even on the basis of the
statement made in the examination-in-chief of the
witness concerned?
Answer
117.4. Considering the fact that under Section 319
CrPC a person against whom material is disclosed is
only summoned to face the trial and in such an event
under Section 319(4) CrPC the proceeding against such
person is to commence from the stage of taking of
cognizance, the court need not wait for the evidence
against the accused proposed to be summoned to be
tested by cross-examination.
Question (iv)--What is the nature of the satisfaction
required to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
12 CRR-4319-2025
arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section
319(1) CrPC can be exercised only if the court is
satisfied that the accused summoned will in all
likelihood be convicted?
Answer
117.5. Though under Section 319(4)(b) CrPC the
accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he
had been an accused when the court initially took
cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that
will be required for summoning a person under Section
319 CrPC would be the same as for framing a charge
[Ed. : The conclusion of law as stated in para 106, p.
138c-d, may be compared:"Thus, we hold that though
only a prima facie case is to be established from the
evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on
the anvil of cross-examination, 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". See also especially in para 100 at p. 136f-
g.] . The difference in the degree of satisfaction for
summoning the original accused and a subsequent
accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have
already commenced against the original accused and it
is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed
against the newly summoned accused. Fresh
summoning of an accused will result in delay of the
trial therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning
the accused (original and subsequent) has to be
different.
Question (v)--Does the power under Section 319 CrPC
extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the
FIR but not charge-sheeted or who have been
discharged?
Answer
117.6. A person not named in the FIR or a person
though named in the FIR but has not been charge-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
13 CRR-4319-2025
sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be
summoned under Section 319 CrPC provided from the
evidence it appears that such person can be tried along
with the accused already facing trial. However, insofar
as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the
requirement of Sections 300 and 398 CrPC has to be
complied with before he can be summoned afresh
[Emphasis Supplied]"
(14) When the facts of the case are examined in the light of law as
settled by the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), it is seen that
the Dehati Nalishi made by the complainant specifically names the present
applicants as accused and also specifies the role of each of the applicants
specifically. The statements of another eyewitness, namely Budh Singh,
recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, reiterates the same version as that
of the complainant/respondent No. 2.
(15) Based upon the report submitted by the CSP Morena, District
Morena to the Superintendent of Police, Morena, dated 4-7-2024, inter alia
recommending for removal of the names of the present applicants from the
offense in question, is primarily based upon the mobile tower locations of the
mobile connections said to have been used by the present applicants and on
the basis of statements of some of the witnesses, opined that at the date and
time of incident, the mobile phone location of the applicants was found to be
elsewhere. In so far as applicant Devendra is concerned, apart from the
mobile tower location, the statement of his wife has also formed the basis for
the IO to opine that on the relevant date and time, the applicant Devendra
was at Telangana. The presence of applicant Surendra Singh is also stated to
be not found on the basis of statements of witnesses recorded during
investigation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
14 CRR-4319-2025
(16) It is noteworthy that after framing of charges against three
accused, namely, Ramraj, Brij Kishore, and Ramroop, the statement of
respondent No. 2/complainant (PW-1) was recorded before the trial court on
1-12-2023 wherein, in his examination-in-chief, he has specifically named
each of the applicants and role attributable to each one of them in the
commission of crime in question. It is only after the evidence of PW-1 was
led before the trial court, the application under Section 319 of CrPC came to
be filed seeking arraignment of the present applicants as accused in the case.
The learned trial court, by taking into consideration the evidence available on
record i.e "the Dehati Nalishi , FIR, and the examination-in-chief statements
of the complainant" recorded on 1-12-2023, considered the application so
filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of CRPC and by taking into
consideration the law propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep
Singh (Supra) opined that the present applicants who have though been
mentioned in the FIR but not charge-sheeted, are liable to face the trial so
that, complete justice in the matter could be done.
(17) The learned trial court while deciding the application under
Section 319 of CRPC filed by the prosecution also took into consideration
the defense of plea of alibi taken by the applicants herein. However, on
being satisfied that the electronic evidence i.e. mobile tower locations said to
have been used by the applicants indicating their presence elsewhere from
the place of incident could not be said to be a conclusive proof on the basis
whereof, the names of the present applicants could have been removed from
the offense by the prosecution as, even the plea of alibi is required to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
15 CRR-4319-2025
established during trial through evidence.
(18) The learned trial court while holding so has placed reliance upon
an order passed by the coordinate bench of this court in the case of Parimal
Singh Gurjar Vs. State of MP and others; MCRC No. 31252 of 2024 decided
on 9th of May 2025. In the said case, it has been held that mobile location
cannot be a conclusive evidence to show that the holder of the mobile was
also at that particular place. A clever person may hand over his mobile to
some other person with instructions to go to a distant place so that the
location of mobile may be recorded at a particular place. Thus the location of
mobile by itself does not mean that the holder of mobile was also at that
particular place. This is the fact which is required to be established in trial.
(19) Much reliance has been placed by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the applicants on the judgment by the Apex Court in the case
of Brijendra Singh (Supra) to contend that while arraigning the accused by
invoking Section 319 of CRPC, something more than "a prima facie case" is
required to be seen by the learned trial court and mechanically, such an
application cannot be allowed. However, the perusal of the judgment by the
Apex Court in the case of Brijendra Singh (Supra) indicates that in the said
case, the Apex Court was of the opinion that once the IO has collected
plethora of evidence to indicate that the applicant therein was not at the place
of incident and plea of alibi was taken, then, the trial court was at least duty
bound to look into the same while forming prima facie opinion and to see
whether much stronger evidence than mere possibility of their complicity has
come to record and in the said case, since there was no such satisfaction of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
16 CRR-4319-2025
the trial court found by the Apex Court, interference was caused. However in
the instant case, the perusal of the reasons assigned by the learned trial court
in allowing the application in question and as discussed herein above would
indicate that the requirement of law as contemplated by the Apex Court in
the case of Hardeep Singh Supra and as reiterated in the case of Brijendra
Singh (Supra) has been duly taken note of and detailed reasons have been
assigned by the learned trial court not only reflecting its satisfaction for not
accepting the plea of alibi in respect of the applicants at this stage and
thereby exercising its discretionary jurisdiction conferred under Section 319
of CrPC.
(20) Moreover, very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Mohd. Kaleem v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 397 has held that
while summoning an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, the
evidence must be "strong and cogent", though not sufficient to establish guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further observed that at this stage, minor
inconsistencies or contradictions in the evidence do not dilute its probative
value so long as the overall material reasonably indicates involvement of the
proposed accused.
"6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the case record. The central question is the
propriety of the exercise of power by the Trial Court
under Section 319 Cr.PC and the justifiability of the
imprimatur granted thereto by the Court below. Before
proceeding to the merits of the matter, it is important to
understand the scales on which the question of propriety
will be adjudged. Courts generally assess evidence at
three distinct levels, depending on the stage of
proceedings and the nature of the relief prayed for. The
lowest threshold, or prima facie standard, requires only
a connection to proceed with formal charges. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
17 CRR-4319-2025
middle threshold, which is often described as strong and
cogent, applies when Courts consider summoning
additional accused under Section 319 CrPC; the
evidence must be reliable and reasonably persuasive,
but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. The
highest threshold demands proof beyond reasonable
doubt, the standard necessary for conviction, where the
Court must be fully satisfied of the guilt of the accused.
It is best illustrated through a hypothetical situation-
At night, a high-end jewelry store is robbed. Police
investigation seizes CCTV footage showing a masked
person fleeing on a motorcycle, statements from two
eyewitnesses, and phone records linking certain
suspects to the vicinity of the store at the time of the
incident.
At the first stage, the investigating officer submits a
charge-sheet against Person 'A'. The Magistrate
reviews the evidence, including the CCTV footage,
witness statements, and other investigative material.
Based on this, the Magistrate finds that there is
sufficient ground to believe that 'A' may have
committed the offence and frames charges. This stage
requires evidence indicating involvement beyond mere
suspicion, but it does not demand fool proof or trial-
level examination thereof.
During the trial of 'A', evidence emerges suggesting
that Persons 'B' and 'C' may also have been involved in
planning or executing the robbery. A witness reports
seeing 'B' near the scene discussing the plan with 'A',
while phone records and CCTV footage show
interactions between 'A', 'B', and 'C'. The Court
would examine whether this evidence is strong and
cogent enough to summon 'B' and 'C' as additional
accused under Section 319. Minor contradictions in
witness accounts or timing are noted, but they do not
automatically negate the overall reliability of the
evidence. At this stage, the court is not determining
guilt, only assessing whether a reasonable inference of
involvement exists.
As the trial continues, forensic evidence reveals
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10391
18 CRR-4319-2025
fingerprints of 'B' on the display case and DNA of 'C'
on a glove left at the scene. Eyewitnesses place 'B' and
'C' at the time of the robbery, and phone messages
show coordination among all the three. Cross-
examination fails to provide credible alibis. Cumulative
assessment of the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt
regarding the participation of 'A', 'B', and 'C', and the
Court can convict all three. This represents the highest
threshold, where minor inconsistencies are immaterial
because the totality of the evidence conclusively
establishes guilt."
[Emphasis Supplied]
(21) Accordingly, in view of the law laid down in Brijendra Singh
(supra), Hardeep Singh (supra) and Mohd. Kaleem (supra) and in the given
facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
learned trial Court has relied upon the statement of the complainant (PW-1)
recorded during trial, along with the contents of the Dehati Nalishi and FIR,
which constitute material involving the present applicants and cannot, at this
stage, be said to be speculative or doubtful. Thus, the order impugned in the
present criminal revision does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as
to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this court
under Section 438/442 of BNSS.
(22) Accordingly, finding no merit in the case, the petition stands
dismissed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
ar
