Citation: 2025 (4) KLR (SC) 1 : 2025 INSC 416
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Dipankar Datta, J.; Manmohan, J.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2025; April 01, 2025

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319 – Power to Summon Additional Accused – Scope and Threshold – Evidence Required – Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court.

Held

The power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon additional accused requires a satisfaction higher than a prima facie case but short of conviction-level certainty, as per Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92. The court must assess evidence emerging during trial, such as the examination-in-chief of a witness, to determine the involvement of persons not initially charged. Where the Sessions Judge allowed an application under Section 319 CrPC based on the complainant’s testimony implicating additional accused in an assault, the High Court erred in setting aside the order by over-relying on police investigations and lack of medical corroboration, adopting an interventionist approach in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court restored the Sessions Judge’s order, emphasizing that a plausible conclusion based on trial evidence warrants deference unless absurd or contrary to law. 

Appeal allowed.

For Appellant(s): Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, AOR Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. Mr. Umang Shankar, Adv. Mr. Vidyut Kayarkar, Adv. Mr. Shailender Negi, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nawab Singh Jaglan, Adv. Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma, AOR Mr. Jasbir, Adv. Ms. Manisha Aggarwal Narain, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sandeep Singh Somaria, Adv. Mr. Chandan Deep Singh, Adv. Mr. Akash Gupta, Adv. Mr. Akhil Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Ms. Shalini Satyanarayan, Adv.

Facts

• On February 9, 2020, an altercation occurred between Satbir Singh (appellant) and Mukesh during a volleyball game in Rasulpur Khurd, Karnal. Mukesh slapped Satbir, and after being separated, Mukesh returned with Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit, armed with a knife, lathi, and danda. Satbir alleged that Neeraj held him while Mukesh stabbed him twice (in the waist and near the heart), and Sagar and Ankit beat him. Rajesh allegedly threatened to kill Satbir if he returned to the village.
• Satbir sustained two sharp-weapon injuries, one deemed life-threatening. Mukesh was arrested, and a case was registered under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The police investigation, including inquiries by three DSPs, found no evidence implicating Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar, or Ankit, and a closure report was filed against them.
• During the trial, Satbir (PW-1) reiterated his allegations against all accused. He filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar, and Ankit as additional accused, which the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, allowed on September 13, 2021.
• The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, on March 7, 2024, set aside the Sessions Judge’s order, finding insufficient evidence beyond Mukesh’s involvement, as medical reports only confirmed knife injuries and police investigations exonerated the others.

Procedural History

• Sessions Court: Allowed Satbir’s Section 319 CrPC application, summoning Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar, and Ankit.
• High Court: Reversed the Sessions Court’s order, dismissing the application due to lack of corroborative medical evidence and reliance on police investigations.
• Supreme Court: Granted special leave to appeal against Rajesh and Neeraj (respondents 1 and 3), dismissing the petition against Sagar and Ankit (respondents 2 and 4).

Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Sessions Judge’s order under Section 319 CrPC to summon Rajesh and Neeraj as additional accused.
2. Whether the evidence presented met the threshold for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC, as per the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014).

Arguments

• Appellant (Satbir Singh): Represented by Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, argued that Satbir’s testimony as PW-1 provided sufficient evidence of Rajesh and Neeraj’s involvement, meeting the Hardeep Singh threshold (more than prima facie satisfaction but short of conviction-level certainty). The Sessions Judge’s order was legally sound.
• Respondents (Rajesh and Neeraj): Represented by Mr. Gagan Gupta, contended that multiple police investigations found no evidence of their involvement, medical reports only attributed injuries to Mukesh, and the High Court correctly intervened due to lack of corroboration.
• State of Haryana: Supported the respondents, citing the counter affidavit and police findings.

Judgment

• Held: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the Sessions Judge’s order summoning Rajesh and Neeraj.
• Reasoning:
  1. Legal Standard (Section 319 CrPC): Relying on Hardeep Singh, (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 7 SCC 344 the Court reiterated that Section 319 CrPC requires a satisfaction higher than a prima facie case (as at the charge-framing stage) but less than conviction-level certainty. The evidence must suggest the person’s involvement in the crime, warranting trial with the original accused.
  2. Evaluation of Evidence: Satbir’s examination-in-chief implicated Neeraj (holding him during the stabbing) and Rajesh (threatening him), providing a basis for the Sessions Judge’s satisfaction. The High Court overemphasized the absence of medical corroboration for injuries by lathi/danda and police reports, ignoring the appellant’s testimony.
  3. High Court’s Error: The High Court adopted an overly interventionist approach in its revisional jurisdiction, despite the Sessions Judge’s plausible conclusion. Police reports alone cannot override courtroom evidence at this stage, and the lack of prior enmity or medical evidence of additional injuries does not negate Satbir’s account.
  4. Caution: The Court clarified that its findings were limited to the appeal’s disposal and should not influence the trial’s outcome.

Disposition

• The impugned High Court order (March 7, 2024) was set aside.
• The Sessions Judge’s order (September 13, 2021) summoning Rajesh and Neeraj was restored.
• The trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously, without prejudice from the Supreme Court’s observations.

Significance

• Reinforces the scope of Section 319 CrPC, emphasizing judicial discretion based on trial evidence over investigative conclusions.
• Clarifies the balance between revisional oversight and trial court autonomy, favoring a “hands-off” approach unless the lower court’s decision is absurd or unlawful.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. What was the primary legal issue addressed in the criminal appeal filed by Satbir Singh?
   a) Challenge to the conviction of the accused
   b) Challenge to the High Court’s order setting aside the summoning of additional accused under Section 319, CrPC
   c) Challenge to the registration of the FIR
   d) Challenge to the bail granted to the accused Answer: b) Challenge to the High Court’s order setting aside the summoning of additional accused under Section 319, CrPC
2. Which court initially allowed the application under Section 319, CrPC to summon additional accused?
   a) High Court of Punjab and Haryana
   b) Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal
   c) Supreme Court of India
   d) Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal Answer: b) Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal
3. Which sections of the Indian Penal Code were the additional accused summoned to face trial for?
   a) Sections 302, 325, and 506
   b) Sections 323, 324, 307, and 506 read with Section 34
   c) Sections 420, 467, and 471
   d) Sections 304, 326, and 509 Answer: b) Sections 323, 324, 307, and 506 read with Section 34
4. What was the role of Neeraj in the alleged assault on Satbir Singh as per the appellant’s statement?
   a) He stabbed the appellant with a knife
   b) He caught hold of the appellant, facilitating the stabbing by Mukesh
   c) He threatened the appellant with a gun
   d) He beat the appellant with a lathi Answer: b) He caught hold of the appellant, facilitating the stabbing by Mukesh
5. What was the basis for the High Court setting aside the Sessions Judge’s order?
   a) Lack of medical evidence corroborating injuries caused by the additional accused
   b) Insufficient witnesses to support the prosecution’s case
   c) The Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to pass the order
   d) The FIR was invalidly registered Answer: a) Lack of medical evidence corroborating injuries caused by the additional accused
6. Which precedent was heavily relied upon by the Supreme Court in this case?
   a) Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana
   b) Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
   c) Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh
   d) Mukesh v. State of Haryana Answer: b) Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
7. What degree of satisfaction is required for summoning an additional accused under Section 319, CrPC, as per the judgment?
   a) Absolute certainty of conviction
   b) Same degree as required for framing a charge
   c) Mere prima facie satisfaction
   d) Satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt Answer: b) Same degree as required for framing a charge
8. Why did the Supreme Court restore the Sessions Judge’s order?
   a) The High Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere
   b) The Sessions Judge’s conclusion was plausible and not absurd
   c) The prosecution failed to examine key witnesses
   d) The police investigation was found to be biased Answer: b) The Sessions Judge’s conclusion was plausible and not absurd

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the incident that led to the registration of the cross-case against Mukesh and others?
   On 09.02.2020, during a volleyball game in village Rasulpur Khurd, an altercation occurred between Satbir Singh (the appellant) and Mukesh. After a brief pacification, Mukesh returned with Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit, allegedly attacking Satbir with a knife, lathi, and danda. Satbir sustained two sharp weapon injuries, one of which was life-threatening, leading to the registration of a cross-case under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. Why was the application under Section 319, CrPC filed by Satbir Singh?
   Satbir Singh filed the application under Section 319, CrPC to summon Rajesh Kumar, Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit as additional accused to face trial alongside Mukesh. This was based on his testimony as PW-1, where he reiterated their alleged involvement in the assault, despite the police investigation concluding that their involvement was not substantiated.
3. What was the High Court’s reasoning for setting aside the Sessions Judge’s order?
   The High Court found that the medical evidence only confirmed two knife injuries caused by Mukesh, with no corroboration for injuries allegedly caused by Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, or Ankit. Additionally, multiple police investigations by DSPs and the SP, Karnal, found no evidence of their presence at the scene. The court also noted that the incident appeared spontaneous, arising from a minor dispute during a volleyball game, with no prior enmity to suggest their participation.
4. Why did the Supreme Court disagree with the High Court’s order?
   The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the matter from the proper perspective, as the Sessions Judge had formed a satisfaction higher than prima facie, based on Satbir’s testimony, which warranted summoning Rajesh and Neeraj for trial. The Court emphasized that police reports alone could not conclusively rule out their involvement and that the Sessions Judge’s conclusion was plausible, not warranting interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
5. What legal principles from Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab were applied in this case?
   The Supreme Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which clarified that:
   • The power under Section 319, CrPC can be exercised at the stage of inquiry or trial based on evidence, broadly understood, not limited to trial evidence.
   • The court need not wait for cross-examination to summon an additional accused; examination-in-chief may suffice.
   • The degree of satisfaction required is the same as for framing a charge, not a likelihood of conviction.
   • Persons not named in the FIR or charge-sheet, or even discharged, can be summoned if evidence suggests their involvement.
6. What instructions did the Supreme Court provide to the Sessions Judge following the appeal?
   The Supreme Court restored the Sessions Judge’s order to summon Rajesh and Neeraj, clarified that its observations should not influence the trial’s outcome, and encouraged the Sessions Judge to conduct the trial expeditiously and in accordance with law to reach a logical conclusion.
7. Can the Sessions Judge’s decision to summon additional accused be challenged?
   Yes, such a decision can be challenged through a revisional application, as done in this case before the High Court. However, the revisional court must adopt an ‘eyes on’ approach to assess whether the Sessions Judge acted mechanically or contrary to law, and interference is warranted only if the conclusion is absurd or unauthorized, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
8. What is the significance of the medical evidence in this case?
   The medical evidence was critical, as it confirmed two sharp weapon injuries on Satbir, one life-threatening, attributed to Mukesh. The absence of medical corroboration for injuries allegedly caused by Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit was a key factor in the High Court’s decision to set aside their summoning. However, the Supreme Court prioritized Satbir’s testimony over the lack of medical evidence at this stage, leaving their complicity to be tested during the trial.