Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, summoning four persons (Rajesh Kumar, Sagar @ Bittoo, Niraj, and Ankit) as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The appellant, Satbir Singh, an Indian Army soldier, was assaulted on 9 February 2020 while playing volleyball. He suffered two knife injuries, one of which was dangerous to life. The police initially filed a closure report against the four, but later a cross-case was registered against Mukesh (the principal accused) and the four others. During trial, the appellant as PW-1 testified against all five, including the four respondents. He then filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon them. The Sessions Judge allowed the application, finding prima facie evidence. The High Court reversed this, relying on police investigation reports that exonerated the four, and noting that the medical evidence only showed knife injuries caused by Mukesh, not injuries from lathis/dandas allegedly used by the others. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on police investigation rather than the evidence recorded during trial. The Court reiterated the law from Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which states that the power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised based on evidence adduced during trial, not on police reports. The Court found that the appellant's testimony (PW-1) clearly implicated the four respondents, and the Sessions Judge had correctly applied the test of prima facie case. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Sessions Judge's order summoning the respondents as additional accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 CrPC - Summoning Additional Accused - Power to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at any stage after charge-sheet and before pronouncement of judgment, based on evidence adduced during trial, not on police investigation - The court must be satisfied that there is prima facie evidence against the person sought to be summoned - Held that the High Court erred in relying on police investigation reports to set aside the summoning order, as the trial court had correctly considered the testimony of the injured witness (PW-1) which disclosed the involvement of the respondents (Paras 13-15). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 CrPC - Evidence - The word 'evidence' in Section 319(1) CrPC means evidence recorded during trial, not material collected during investigation - The Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab clarified that the power under Section 319 is to be exercised on the basis of evidence that appears in the course of inquiry or trial - Held that the High Court's reliance on police reports and investigations was contrary to law (Paras 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Sessions Judge's order summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC by relying on police investigation reports rather than the evidence recorded during trial.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order of the High Court set aside. Order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 13.09.2021 summoning Rajesh Kumar, Sagar @ Bittoo, Niraj, and Ankit as additional accused restored. Trial court directed to proceed with trial against all accused.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC
- power to summon additional accused
- evidence during trial
- police investigation not relevant
- prima facie case
- satisfaction of court
