The Supreme Court has ruled that courts should not reject applications to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) merely because of minor inconsistencies in witness statements.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court, holding that the evidence on record was sufficient to summon two additional accused in a murder case from Uttar Pradesh.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a 2017 murder in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, where a man named Mohammad Ammar was shot dead while travelling on a scooter with the complainant Mohammad Kaleem.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Employer Group Insurance Amount Cannot Be Deducted from Motor Accident Compensation
According to the FIR lodged at Kotwali Nagar Police Station, several accused persons allegedly intercepted Ammar and opened fire, leading to his death. The complainant claimed that the killing was part of a larger conspiracy linked to earlier criminal disputes between the parties.
During trial proceedings, the complainant sought to summon Rajendra and Mausam as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, relying on his testimony and statements of two other witnesses.
However, the Trial Court rejected the application, and the decision was later upheld by the Allahabad High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the Trial Court had applied an excessively strict standard while evaluating the evidence at the stage of Section 319 CrPC.
The Court noted that Section 319 allows a trial court to summon additional accused if evidence during the trial indicates their involvement in the offence.
Read also:- Maternity Leave for Adoptive Mothers: Supreme Court Questions 3-Month Child Age Restriction
The Bench explained that criminal proceedings operate on different evidentiary thresholds depending on the stage of the case from a prima facie view at the initial stage to proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction.
The Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court wrongly focused on minor contradictions between witnesses, such as differences in their accounts about alleged meetings between the conspirators.
The Court held that such discrepancies should not be examined in detail at the stage of considering a Section 319 application.
“The power under Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence, but the court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or determine guilt at this stage,” the Bench observed.
Read also:- J&K High Court Upholds Eviction Appeal Rule, Says ‘Symbolic Possession’ Enough to File Appeal
It further noted that the Trial Court had adopted a fragmented approach, analysing inconsistencies individually instead of evaluating the cumulative effect of the testimonies.
The Bench also clarified that oral evidence alone may be sufficient to summon additional accused if it reasonably indicates their involvement.
Setting aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court directed that the proposed accused be summoned and tried in accordance with law.
The Court held that the testimonies of three witnesses, including the complainant, were sufficient to meet the “strong and cogent evidence” standard required under Section 319 CrPC.
Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the matter was sent back to the Trial Court for further proceedings.
Case Title: Mohammad Kaleem v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11085 of 2023
