Trial Evidence Prevails Over Police Reports for Summoning Additional Accused: Supreme Court

This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which had set aside an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. The Sessions Judge had allowed an application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by Satbir Singh, the appellant, seeking to summon Rajesh Kumar, & others as additional accused to stand trial alongside the principal accused, Mukesh, for offences under Sections 323, 324, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 34 thereof, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, had overturned the Sessions Judge’s order.

In analyzing whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Sessions Judge’s order summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC based on the evidence adduced during the trial, particularly the examination-in-chief of the complainant, despite earlier police investigations suggesting a lack of involvement of these individuals, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled principles laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment of Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab (click here to Download)** and Jitendra Nath Mishra vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (click here to Download) regarding the scope and applicability of Section 319 CrPC. The Court emphasized that the word "evidence" under Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood to include the evidence recorded during trial, even at the stage of examination-in-chief, and that the degree of satisfaction required to summon an additional accused is higher than forming a prima facie case for framing charges but short of that required for conviction.

The Supreme Court observed that the Sessions Judge had formed the requisite satisfaction based on the appellant's testimony, which reiterated allegations against the proposed additional accused. The Court held that the High Court had erred in giving undue credence to the reports of the Deputy Superintendents of Police that had not found the involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj, especially when contradictory evidence had emerged during the trial.

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court and restoring the order of the Additional Sessions Judge to summon Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj to face trial however, the SLP against other accused had already been dismissed at the notice stage.

The Supreme Court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of disposing of the appeal and should not be construed as an opinion on the involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj in the crime. The Sessions Judge was encouraged to conclude the trial expeditiously.

CORAM: JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA AND JUSTICE MANMOHAN
BETWEEN: SATBIR SINGH VS RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 2025 INSC 416
DOJ: 01-04-2025