Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order quashing the summons issued under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It held that the High Court had erred in disregarding the consistent depositions of eyewitnesses implicating the respondent and wrongly conducted a “mini-trial” at the summoning stage. The Court restored the Trial Court’s summoning order and directed the completion of trial within 18 months.
Facts
Two FIRs were registered relating to an incident on 29 November 2017. The first FIR was filed by the appellant-complainant under Sections 302, 307, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging that four individuals—Rahul, Dinesh, Rajendra, and Shiv Moorat—entered his home and assaulted his brother, who later died. The second FIR, unrelated to the current proceedings, was filed by another individual under different IPC sections.
Based on the investigation in the first FIR, the police excluded Rajendra from the chargesheet, citing no involvement. However, during trial, three eyewitnesses (PW1, PW2, and PW3) named Rajendra and described his participation. Relying on this, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon Rajendra. The Trial Court initially rejected this but later allowed it after remand by the High Court.
Rajendra challenged the summoning order, and the High Court quashed it, holding that the evidence lacked specificity regarding his role and motive. The complainant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the High Court rightly quashed the Trial Court’s summoning order under Section 319 CrPC?
- What is the threshold of evidence required for summoning a person not originally chargesheeted under Section 319?
- Can a person named in the FIR but excluded from the chargesheet be later summoned during trial?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that Rajendra was clearly named in the FIR and consistently implicated by three eyewitnesses during the trial. The Trial Court, after evaluating the deposition, had rightly summoned him under Section 319 CrPC. The High Court erred in applying a higher evidentiary standard and in re-evaluating factual aspects prematurely, which should be reserved for the trial’s conclusion.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent contended that the depositions lacked clarity, did not describe Rajendra’s specific role or motive, and that no evidence of common intention was presented. The High Court was correct in finding that the material did not meet the threshold required under Section 319 CrPC for summoning a person not originally chargesheeted.
Analysis of the Law
Section 319(1) CrPC empowers a court to summon a person who appears from the evidence to have committed an offence, even if not chargesheeted. The Court emphasized that this provision is intended to prevent real offenders from escaping trial merely because they were not initially implicated.
The section mandates that if evidence surfaces during inquiry or trial indicating another’s involvement, the court must summon them to ensure a fair trial. However, this power must be exercised with caution and only upon satisfaction that the evidence against such a person is stronger than mere suspicion but short of a full conviction threshold.
Precedent Analysis
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92: A Constitution Bench held that the power under Section 319 can be exercised even at the stage of examination-in-chief, without requiring cross-examination, provided the evidence is prima facie sufficient to show complicity.
- Labhuji Amratji Thakor v. State of Gujarat (2019) 12 SCC 644: Clarified that the standard under Section 319 is higher than that for framing charges but lower than that required for conviction.
- Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2021) 12 SCC 608: Reaffirmed that Section 319 CrPC must be used sparingly and only upon strong and cogent evidence.
- S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak (2017) 16 SCC 226: Held that a court may summon a person named in the FIR but not chargesheeted if evidence during trial supports such action.
- Omi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) 2 SCC 621: Summarised the principles for summoning under Section 319, especially the non-reliance on the chargesheet and the importance of trial evidence.
- Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706: Reiterated that the Trial Court should evaluate trial evidence, not police findings, when using Section 319.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that PW1, the complainant, had named Rajendra in the FIR and consistently during trial. He assigned Rajendra a specific role—carrying a baton—at the scene of the offence. PW2 and PW3 corroborated this.
The High Court, in contrast, applied an erroneous standard akin to that used in a final trial verdict, requiring motive and detailed sequence of events. The Supreme Court emphasized that at the Section 319 stage, the test is one of “strong suspicion”, and not a final conclusion on guilt.
It held that the High Court wrongly conducted a mini-trial and disregarded consistent direct evidence from multiple eyewitnesses.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Trial Court’s summoning order. It directed all parties to appear before the Trial Court on 28 August 2025 and cooperate fully. The trial is to be completed within 18 months.
The Court reiterated:
“The object [of Section 319] is to ensure that no guilty person should be allowed to escape the process of law… The power must not be used casually but with utmost caution.”
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the victim-centric and society-oriented nature of Section 319 CrPC. It clarifies that:
- Naming in FIR and deposition during trial can justify summoning under Section 319 even if the person was not chargesheeted.
- Courts must not conduct a mini-trial at the summoning stage.
- The objective is to bring real culprits to justice, not to shield them due to procedural omissions during investigation.
This ruling strengthens prosecutorial fairness by preventing accused from being excluded simply due to investigative lapses.
FAQs
Q1. Can a person named in the FIR but not chargesheeted be summoned later under Section 319?
Yes. If trial evidence implicates them, the court can summon such a person even if excluded from the chargesheet.
Q2. Does Section 319 require cross-examination of witnesses before summoning a new accused?
No. As held in Hardeep Singh, even examination-in-chief alone is sufficient if the court is prima facie satisfied about the person’s complicity.
Q3. What is the standard of evidence required under Section 319?
The standard is higher than mere suspicion or a prima facie case (as for charge framing), but lower than what is required for conviction. It must be based on strong and cogent evidence appearing in trial.
