Supreme Court: In the appeals challenging the trial court and the Allahabad High Court’s judgments refusing to allow an application filed under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking summoning of additional accused persons on the basis of evidence recorded during murder trial, a Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Augustine George Masih, JJ., set aside the impugned judgments and allowed the summoning of additional accused persons.
The Court held that at the stage of exercising power under Section 319 CrPC, the Court should not conduct a detailed evaluation of credibility or insist on proof sufficient for conviction, and minor inconsistencies or absence of documentary corroboration cannot by themselves justify refusal to summon additional accused.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, as per FIR, the appellant-complainant (PW 1) and the deceased were travelling on a scooter to attend court proceedings when certain named accused persons arrived on motorcycles and fired shots at the deceased with the intention to kill him, resulting in his death. It was alleged that the incident was the result of a conspiracy hatched by certain persons who were already in jail in connection with earlier criminal cases.
After investigation, the police filed chargesheet only against some of the named persons. During the course of trial, two witnesses, PWs 6 and 7, were examined after the High Court allowed their examination. On the basis of the testimony of the appellant and PWs 6 and 7, the appellant filed an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking summoning of two other additional accused on the ground that they were involved in the conspiracy leading to the murder.
The trial court rejected the application holding that the evidence was contradictory and unreliable, and the High Court affirmed that order. Aggrieved, the appellant therefore approached the Supreme Court challenging both the orders.
Trial Court’s Proceeding
The trial court examined the statements of appellant, PWs 6 and 7 and found material inconsistencies regarding the alleged conspiracy. The appellant stated that the proposed accused had met 3 persons in jail, while the other witnesses gave different versions about who was present in the alleged meeting. No exact date or time of the meeting was given, nor was any jail record produced to support the claim. The case diary also indicated that one of the alleged conspirators had been transferred to another jail prior to the incident, casting doubt on the prosecution version.
The trial court also found the circumstances in which the witnesses allegedly overheard the conversation to be doubtful, as their route of travel did not naturally pass through the alleged place of meeting. The trial court further noted contradictions between the FIR and the appellant’s testimony regarding the number of assailants, the manner in which the injured was taken to the hospital, and the alleged motive for the murder. The complainant admitted previous enmity with the accused and the trial court found the prosecution story to be suspicious.
Based on abovementioned factors, the trial court held that the evidence did not reach the standard required for invoking Section 319 CrPC and dismissed the application.
Moot Point
The principal question before the Supreme Court was the propriety of the exercise of power by the trial court under Section 319 CrPC and the justifiability of the imprimatur granted thereto by the Court below.
Court’s Analysis
At the outset, the Court explained that evidence in criminal proceedings, the Courts generally assess evidence at three distinct levels, depending on the stage of proceedings and the nature of the relief prayed for, namely:
-
At the stage of framing charge, prima facie standard requires only a connection to proceed with formal charges.
-
At the stage of summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, which often described as strong and cogent, the evidence must be reliable and reasonably persuasive, but proof beyond reasonable doubt was not required.
-
At the stage of conviction, the evidence demands that the guilt to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the standard necessary for conviction.
The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, that the Court need not establish guilt or conduct a detailed credibility assessment at this stage and Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2639, that pre-trial scrutiny should not resemble a mini trial. The Court further reiterated that “the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. The Court must assess whether the evidence on record, if unrebutted, reasonably indicates the involvement of the proposed accused.”
-
On trial court’s approach
The Court observed that the trial court correctly noted that the evidence must be strong and cogent, but it went beyond the permissible scope of scrutiny at the stage of Section 319 CrPC. The trial court placed excessive emphasis on minor contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and on the absence of documentary corroboration such as jail records. The trial court also analysed the evidence in a fragmented manner instead of considering the cumulative effect of the testimonies. Similarly, reliance on documentary corroboration is not required; oral evidence alone, if credible, may suffice. The Court asserted that such an approach by the trial court amounted to applying a standard closer to that required for conviction rather than the standard applicable for summoning an additional accused.
The Court held that issues relating to credibility, inconsistencies, and plausibility are matters for full trial and cross-examination and should not be conclusively determined while deciding an application under Section 319 CrPC.
-
Sufficiency of evidence to summon additional accused
The Court noted that 3 witnesses, including the appellant, had named the proposed accused and had attributed a role to them in the alleged conspiracy. Even though there were inconsistencies in their statements, it is a separate matter as the same was matter of trial and not within the Court’s scope at the time of considering an application under section 319 CrPC. The Court held that the testimony on oath was sufficient to meet the requirement of strong and cogent evidence at the stage of Section 319 CrPC.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that the trial court had applied a stricter standard than required and had exceeded the permissible limits of scrutiny while deciding the application under Section 319 CrPC.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgments of the trial court and the High Court and directed that the additional accused be summoned as additional accused to stand trial.
[Mohd. Kaleem v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 397, decided on 17-3-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Adv., Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR, Mr. Zeeshan Ahmed, Adv., Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv., Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv., Dr. Bharpur Singh, Adv., Mr. Adesh Gill, Adv., Mr. Vikas Gothwal, Adv., Ms. Angel, Adv., Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv., Mr. Dharam Raj Ohlan, Adv., Mr. Santanu Mishra, Adv., Ms. Kadambini Arora, Adv., Mr. Varun Singh, Adv., Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv., Mr. Kacho Manzoor Ali Khan, Adv., Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR, Mr. Harsh Kumar Agarwal, Adv., Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
