In a significant ruling on April 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that courts can rely on pre-trial evidence, including unrebutted examination-in-chief testimony, when deciding whether to summon additional accused persons under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Background of the Case
The case involved an appeal against a High Court decision that had overturned a trial court’s order. The trial court had originally allowed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused based on the unrebutted testimony of the appellant-complainant during examination-in-chief.
The proposed accused had challenged this in the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction. Without first examining whether the trial court’s order suffered from illegality or perversity (a prerequisite for invoking revisional jurisdiction), the High Court re-evaluated the evidence and reversed the trial court’s decision.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan overturned the High Court’s decision, holding that the High Court erred by reassessing evidence without first establishing whether the trial court’s order was perverse or illegal—a mandatory requirement for invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC.
Justice Datta, writing the judgment, noted that the trial court had correctly found “more than a prima facie case” based on the unrebutted testimony of the appellant.
Key Legal Principles Reiterated
The Court referred to principles established in the Constitution Bench decision of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) and later affirmed in Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another:
- Evidence in Section 319 CrPC: The term “evidence” must be broadly understood and is not limited to evidence tested by cross-examination. Courts need not wait for cross-examination to conclude before exercising power under this section.
- Timing of Section 319 CrPC Power: After committal, cognizance of an offense can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available, under Section 193 CrPC.
- Pre-Trial Inquiry: Section 319 CrPC encompasses both “inquiry” and “trial” stages, with inquiry referring to pre-trial proceedings.
- Standard of Satisfaction: The degree of satisfaction required for summoning a person under Section 319 CrPC is the same as for framing a charge—more than a prima facie case but less than full satisfaction that the evidence would secure a conviction if unrebutted.
- Applicability to Discharged Persons: The power extends to persons not named in the FIR, named but not charge-sheeted, or those who have been discharged (subject to compliance with Sections 300 and 398 CrPC).
Facts of the Present Case
In the present case, Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others, the appellant had testified that Neeraj (sibling of the main accused Mukesh) had held him, facilitating a knife attack by Mukesh. Rajesh allegedly threatened the appellant afterward.
The Court observed: “Having regard to the version of the appellant in course of examination-in-chief, the Sessions Judge formed a satisfaction higher than a prima facie satisfaction of the alleged involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj (proposed accused) and that their complicity in the crime has to be examined and tested on evidence being led at the trial.”
Conclusion
This ruling clarifies the scope and application of Section 319 CrPC, particularly regarding when and on what basis additional accused can be summoned during ongoing proceedings. The judgment upholds the trial court’s discretion in such matters while emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Courts.
The decision reaffirms that courts can take a proactive approach in ensuring all potentially culpable parties face trial, based on emerging evidence, without necessarily waiting for the complete cross-examination of witnesses.
Disclaimer
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided herein is based on our interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment in Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 375]. While we strive for accuracy, legal principles and their application may vary based on specific facts and circumstances. Readers should consult with a qualified legal professional before taking any action based on this information. Shailendra Singh & Co. does not accept any liability for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information contained in this blog. Case outcomes depend on the specific facts, applicable law, and the discretion of courts.