Individuals Not Charge-Sheeted Can Be Summoned To Face Trial If Evidence Establishes Their Involvement In Offence: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held that those not charge-sheeted by the police can also be summoned to face trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure India, 1973 (Cr.PC) if strong and cogent evidence against them surfaces during the trial.

Justice Jitendra Kumar, while dismissing the criminal revision petition filed by Draupadi Kunwar and others, observed, “The Court is empowered to summon any person to be tried together with the accused if it appears to the Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced during the ongoing trial, that he has committed the offence.”

The case arose from an FIR filed, alleging that the petitioners, along with one Keshav Mishra, had set fire to the informant's hut, causing extensive damage to household items, grain sacks, and equipment worth Rs. 4–5 lakhs. The police, after investigation, charge-sheeted only Keshav Mishra while exonerating the petitioners. However, during the trial, three prosecution witnesses—Shivnath Shah (P.W.-1), Babulal Mishra (P.W.-2), and Lalbabu Mishra (P.W.-3)—testified to the involvement of the petitioners in the crime. Based on this testimony, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.PC, which the trial court allowed.

The Court while analyzing the evidence, quoted, “P.W.-1, Shivnath Shah, is an eye witness to the alleged occurrence and he has clearly deposed that the Petitioners had set the house of the informant to fire resulting in the destruction of his house and household items. His evidence does not appear to be demolished even after his cross-examination.”

The Court further noted that the testimonies of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 corroborated the prosecution's claims and remained intact under cross-examination.

The petitioners contended that they had been found innocent during the investigation and, therefore, could not be summoned. However, the contention was rejected by the court, placing reliance on the judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), wherein it was explained that the power under Section 319 Cr.PC extends to persons not charge-sheeted if strong evidence crops up during the trial.

The Court, in its judgment, at the same time pointed out one motive for the crime when it said, “From the prosecution evidence, it also appears that there is a dispute between the accused-Petitioners and the informant regarding the land on which the hut-like house of the informant was standing and destroyed by fire. As such, there appears to be a strong motive on the part of the Petitioners to commit the offence.”

In conclusion, the court upheld the trial court's summoning order, stating, “The evidence recorded against the Petitioners in the ongoing trial is strong and cogent. It is more than a prima facie case. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order rendering the present petition liable to be dismissed.”

Case Title: Draupadi Kunwar @ Draupati Kunwar and Ors vs The State of Bihar and Anr

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 6

Click Here To Download Judgement