S. 319 CrPC | Degree Of Satisfaction To Summon Additional Accused Must Be Higher Than The Standards Required At Framing Of Charges Stage: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj added that the discretionary power u/s 319 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that the evidence on record must strongly suggest more than a "prima facie" case against such a person and his involvement in the commission of the crime.

The Court expressly relied upon the top Court's ruling in the cases of Labhuji Amratji Thakor and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another and Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors 2014, wherein it was held that the power under this provision should be exercised only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

Essentially, the HC was dealing with a plea moved by four individuals challenging a 2007 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, summoning them as an additional accused in a Murder case under Section 319 CrPC.

Though initially, the applicants were named as accused in the FIR, after the investigation, a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC was filed in which only five accused persons were named. In contrast, all the applicants were declared innocent.

However, during the trial, when the prosecution had been examining its witnesses, an application u/s 319 CrPC was moved for summoning the applicants as an additional accused.

The trial court, considering the testimony of three PWs, observed that a prima facie case regarding the involvement of the applicants accused was also made out, and thus, the said applicant was allowed. Challenging that order, the applicants moved the HC.

Their primary argument was that the trial court had not examined the nature of the evidence adduced and the case set up by the prosecution before summoning them as additional accused.

On the other hand, the State Counsel argued that the complainant, from the very beginning, had set up a common case against all the accused persons and the names of the applicants were also mentioned in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

It was also contended that in their depositions recorded before the trial court, the witnesses have narrated about the involvement of the accused applicants; therefore, considering the material on record, the trial court had rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that the entire case of the prosecution hinged upon circumstantial evidence, and the deceased had allegedly been administered poison; however, there was nothing on record to indicate that all these accused-applicants, who have been summoned as additional accused either resided or visited the said place, when the alleged crime was committed.

“Though, the complainant has alleged conspiracy amongst all the accused persons, but in the FIR or in the final charge sheet, Section 120-B IPC or any other section, much less showing the common intention/object has not been incorporated…The allegations by complainant in the beginning relating to the involvement of the accused-applicants is vague and was disbelieved by the investigating officer while declaring them innocent,” the Court further noted.

Furthermore, the Court also discarded the argument of the state counsel that the deposition of complainant-PW-1 recorded during the trial proceedings was enough for summoning the applicants as an additional accused.

“…the deposition of complainant-PW-1 before the court cannot be construed as a new piece of evidence, which emerged for the first time and was not previously available when either the first information report was registered or the investigation was carried out,” the Court said.

It also added that the expression "Evidence" contained in Section 319 Cr.P.C. would not include a vague statement, and essentially, the prosecution witness's deposition must be tested in its substance.

In view of this, holding that the impugned order suffers from grave illegality and impropriety, the bench set it aside and allowed the plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Tung Nath Tewari, Ravindra Bajpai

Counsel for Opposite Party: Govt. Advocate, R.C. Gupta, S. Misra

Case title - Rekha And 3 Ors. vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 21

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 21

Click Here To Read/Download Order