In a landmark judgment on April 1, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), an additional accused can be summoned based solely on pre-trial evidence, such as the unrebutted examination-in-chief of a witness, without requiring cross-examination to be completed.

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan was hearing a case where the trial court had summoned additional accused persons based on the examination-in-chief of the appellant-complainant. The trial court observed that the testimony provided sufficient grounds to invoke Section 319 CrPC.

Background of the Case

Challenging the trial court’s decision, the proposed accused approached the High Court through a revision petition. The High Court, instead of determining whether the trial court’s order suffered from illegality or perversity, reassessed the evidence and overturned the trial court’s decision. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the appellant-complainant then moved the Supreme Court.

Read Also:- Senior Advocate Criticized by Supreme Court Again for False Assertions in Bail Petition

Overruling the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court had erred by re-evaluating the evidence without first establishing whether the trial court’s order was perverse or illegal. Justice Datta, while delivering the judgment, reiterated the principles established in earlier decisions, particularly the Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 and its reaffirmation in Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another.

The Court laid out the legal standard for invoking Section 319 CrPC:

• The standard of proof required for summoning an additional accused is higher than a mere prima facie case (which is needed for framing charges) but lower than the level of proof required for conviction.
• The term "evidence" in Section 319 CrPC should be interpreted broadly, covering both pre-trial and trial-stage materials.

Key Legal Questions and Supreme Court’s Answers

At what stage can Section 319 CrPC be invoked?

"After committal, cognizance of an offense can be taken against a person not named as an accused if materials are available from the police investigation papers. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 CrPC, and the Sessions Judge need not wait for trial-stage evidence under Section 319 CrPC."

Read Also:- Supreme Court Affirms Bombay High Court's Ruling in Advocate Cheating Case

Does "evidence" in Section 319 CrPC mean only trial-stage evidence or also pre-trial materials?

The Court clarified that "evidence" includes materials from inquiries conducted under Sections 200, 201, 202, and 398 CrPC. These can be used to corroborate trial-stage evidence for summoning an accused.

Can an accused be summoned solely based on an examination-in-chief statement, without cross-examination?

"Under Section 319 CrPC, a person against whom material evidence is disclosed is only summoned to face trial. Since the trial will begin afresh for the additional accused, the court need not wait for cross-examination."

What degree of satisfaction is required for summoning an accused?

"The degree of satisfaction required for summoning a person under Section 319 CrPC is similar to that needed for framing a charge. However, summoning a fresh accused mid-trial may delay proceedings, so the threshold for summoning must be carefully considered."

Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses PIL Against Increased Ticket Prices of Telugu Film 'Sankranthiki Vasthunam'

Can Section 319 CrPC apply to persons not named in the FIR or who were discharged?

The Court held that a person who was:

• Not named in the FIR,
• Named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted,
• Discharged from the case,

Can still be summoned under Section 319 CrPC, provided that the evidence suggests their involvement in the crime.

However, for a discharged accused, compliance with Sections 300 and 398 CrPC is mandatory before they can be summoned again.

The Court found that the trial court was correct in recording that there was more than a prima facie case against the additional accused based on the unrebutted testimony of the appellant.

Testimony of the Appellant (Examination-in-Chief)

"Neeraj, the brother of Mukesh (main accused), held me down, allowing Mukesh to stab me in the waist and near the heart, causing a lung injury. Rajesh then threatened me, saying, 'Chaaku maar ke tassali kar di, agar dobaara zinda gaon me ayega to mai goli se uda dunga.'"

Given this statement, the Sessions Judge determined that there was a higher-than-prima-facie satisfaction regarding the involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj in the crime. The High Court should have adopted an "eyes on" approach rather than a "hands-off" approach when reviewing the trial court’s decision.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Defers Ranveer Allahabadia's Passport Plea; Investigation Nears Completion

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court’s intervention was unwarranted and unjustified. It restored the trial court’s order summoning the additional accused, emphasizing that courts must adhere to the legal standards laid out in Hardeep Singh and other precedents.

Case Title: SATBIR SINGH VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Appearance:

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