-
by sayum
03 July 2026 2:55 PM
“Power To Add Accused Is Extraordinary But Exists To Ensure Real Culprits Do Not Escape”, Punjab and Haryana High Court clarifying the scope of Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held that courts possess the power to summon persons not charge-sheeted by the police if evidence emerging during trial indicates their involvement in the offence. The Court emphasized that this power exists to prevent real offenders from escaping trial merely because the investigating agency chose not to prosecute them.
The Court observed:
“There is more than prima facie evidence available on record for which the petitioners ought to be tried jointly with the challaned accused.”
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 361 dated 18 July 2024, registered at Police Station Dabwali Sadar, Haryana, under Sections 103(2), 190 and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to a murder committed with a sharp-edged agricultural implement (kassi).
The complainant Sukhdev, in his FIR, alleged that several persons from the same village had jointly murdered his brother Mukesh during the night while he was sleeping in a plot outside the house.
According to the complaint, when Sukhdev rushed to the spot after hearing his brother’s screams, he saw multiple accused fleeing from the scene. On reaching the plot he found his brother lying dead with severe injuries on the mouth and neck caused by a kassi.
The FIR specifically named eight persons as accused in the murder.
However, during the course of investigation, the police challaned only one accused, Mukesh son of Hetram, while seven others including the present petitioners were exonerated.
Trial Court Summoned Exonerated Accused During Trial
During the trial proceedings, the complainant Sukhdev appeared as PW-2. In his examination-in-chief before the Sessions Court, he reiterated the allegations made in the FIR and again named the petitioners as participants in the murder.
Based on this testimony, the prosecution moved an application under Section 358 BNSS seeking summoning of the petitioners and other exonerated persons as additional accused.
The Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sirsa, allowed the application and summoned the petitioners to face trial along with the already charge-sheeted accused.
Challenging this order, the petitioners approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court in criminal revision.
State And Complainant Opposed The Revision
The State and the complainant strongly opposed the petition.
They argued that the disclosure statement made by the co-accused in police custody was not admissible evidence, and therefore it could not override the sworn testimony of the complainant.
They further pointed out that the post-mortem report revealed eight sharp-edged injuries on the deceased, making it highly improbable that a single person could have inflicted all the injuries alone.
It was also argued that both the complainant and the accused belonged to the same village, making their identification credible.
Principles Governing Summoning Of Additional Accused
The High Court examined the law governing the exercise of powers under Section 358 BNSS, referring extensively to landmark Supreme Court judgments including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana, Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab.
Justice Bedi reiterated the settled principle that the power to summon additional accused is discretionary and extraordinary, but it exists to ensure that all real perpetrators of an offence are brought before the court.
The Court explained:
“The crucial test to be applied for summoning an additional accused is that there must be more than a prima facie case, though the evidence need not be such that it would inevitably lead to conviction.”
The Court further clarified that the evidentiary threshold for invoking Section 358 BNSS is higher than that required for framing charges but lower than the standard required for conviction.
“Court Need Not Wait For Cross-Examination To Invoke Section 358 BNSS”
The High Court reiterated the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that a trial court can exercise power under Section 358 BNSS even on the basis of the examination-in-chief of a witness, without waiting for cross-examination.
Justice Bedi observed that the testimony of the complainant during trial constituted evidence before the court, which could be relied upon for summoning additional accused.
Exoneration By Police Not Binding On Court
The Court emphasized that the opinion of the investigating agency is not binding on the trial court.
Even if certain persons were not charge-sheeted after investigation, the court retains the authority to summon them if evidence emerges during trial.
Justice Bedi noted that there was no clear material on record explaining how or why the investigating agency had exonerated the petitioners.
The Court therefore held that the trial court was justified in independently evaluating the evidence before it.
Disclosure Statement In Police Custody Has No Evidentiary Value
The High Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on the disclosure statement of the arrested accused claiming sole responsibility.
Justice Bedi clarified that a disclosure statement made in police custody is not admissible evidence, and therefore it could not be used to negate the prosecution witness’s testimony at the summoning stage.
Multiple Injuries Suggested Participation Of Several Accused
Another factor that weighed with the Court was the medical evidence.
The post-mortem report revealed eight sharp-edged injuries on the body of the deceased, and the Court found it unlikely that all such injuries were inflicted by a single person.
Justice Bedi observed:
“The medical evidence shows as many as eight injuries with sharp-edged weapons. It is unlikely that the said injuries were inflicted by one person alone.”
High Court Refuses To Interfere In Revisional Jurisdiction
The Court emphasized that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited, particularly in matters involving discretionary orders such as summoning under Section 358 BNSS.
Since the trial court had exercised its discretion on the basis of evidence recorded during trial, the High Court held that no perversity or illegality was made out.
Justice Bedi stated that a detailed appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of summoning additional accused.
Final Decision
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, holding that the order dated 16 September 2025 passed by the Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sirsa summoning the petitioners as additional accused was legally justified.
The Court held that the evidence on record clearly disclosed more than a prima facie case against the petitioners, warranting their trial along with the already charge-sheeted accused.
The ruling reiterates a crucial principle of criminal jurisprudence: courts are not bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency and can summon additional accused if evidence during trial reveals their involvement.
By affirming the summoning order under Section 358 BNSS, the Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized that the criminal justice system must ensure that the real perpetrators of an offence do not escape trial merely because they were initially exonerated during investigation.
Date of Decision: 10 March 2026
