The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that a trial court can summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based solely on the examination-in-chief of a prosecution witness and need not await cross-examination, provided the material discloses involvement strong enough to require trial. The Court made this observation while allowing the appeal in Satbir Singh vs Rajesh Kumar & Others [Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2025], restoring the order of the Sessions Judge summoning two more persons to face trial for attempt to murder.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a violent altercation on February 9, 2020, during a volleyball match in Rasulpur Khurd village, Karnal district, Haryana. The appellant, Satbir Singh, a serving Army man home on leave, was seriously injured after being stabbed in the waist and chest—one blow reportedly penetrating the lungs. Initially, based on the statement of Mukesh (injured in the same incident), an FIR was registered against Satbir Singh.
However, after Satbir regained consciousness on February 14, 2020, he gave a statement alleging that he had been attacked by Mukesh, aided by Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit. He further alleged that Rajesh Kumar issued a death threat in these words:
“Chaaku maar ke tassali kar di, agar dobaara zinda gaon me ayega to mai goli se uda dunga.”
(“Now that the stabbing is done, if you return alive to the village again, I will shoot you.”)
Relying on this testimony, Satbir Singh moved an application under Section 319 CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, seeking to summon Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar, and Ankit as co-accused. The Sessions Court allowed the application on September 13, 2021, and directed they be tried along with Mukesh.
However, Rajesh and others challenged the order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which quashed the summons, observing that the medical evidence and multiple police inquiries failed to corroborate the allegations.
Legal Issues Involved
The appeal before the Supreme Court raised the following important legal issues:
- Whether a trial court can summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC based solely on examination-in-chief, without waiting for cross-examination?
- What degree of satisfaction must a court record before invoking Section 319 CrPC?
- Can the findings of police investigations and DSP-level inquiries override the judicial discretion of a trial court acting under Section 319 CrPC?
- Did the High Court exceed its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC by interfering with a plausible and lawful order of the trial court?
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
- Senior Advocate Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, appearing for the appellant Satbir Singh, contended that the Sessions Judge had properly evaluated the testimony of PW-1 (the victim himself), and the satisfaction required under Section 319 CrPC was duly recorded.
- Senior Advocate Mr. Gagan Gupta, representing respondents Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj, relied on the fact that three DSPs and the SHO had found no evidence against them and that the trial court had erred in summoning them despite the lack of corroborating material.
- The State of Haryana, represented through counsel, filed a counter-affidavit and did not object to the summoning but left the matter to the court’s discretion.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Key Observations
The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that the High Court’s interference was unwarranted and that the Sessions Judge had acted within the ambit of law.
The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, especially the following:
“The word ‘evidence’ under Section 319 CrPC is to be broadly understood and includes examination-in-chief, and the court need not wait for the evidence to be tested by cross-examination.”
The Court quoted with approval from Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P., (2023) 7 SCC 344, and observed:
“The court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power under Section 319 CrPC, must not act mechanically merely because some evidence has come on record… The satisfaction must be more than prima facie but short of the level that would warrant a conviction if unrebutted.”
Applying this test, the Court found that the Sessions Judge had correctly exercised discretion, especially since Neeraj was alleged to have physically restrained the victim during the stabbing, and Rajesh Kumar allegedly issued a specific threat to kill.
“The conclusion of the Sessions Judge was a plausible conclusion and not an absurd one so as to warrant interference by the High Court,” the Court ruled.
The Supreme Court, finding that the High Court failed to properly appreciate the scope of revisional jurisdiction, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated March 7, 2024, and restored the Sessions Judge’s order summoning Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj.
The Court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding this appeal and would not prejudice the trial.
“The Sessions Judge is encouraged to take the trial to its logical conclusion, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,” the Bench concluded.
Case Details
- Case Title: Satbir Singh vs Rajesh Kumar & Others
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
- Appellant’s Counsel: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv.
- Respondents’ Counsel: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv.
