Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC Requires Strong Evidence, Not Conviction-Level Proof — Cross-Examination Not a Precondition: Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Threshold

“The Court Is Duty-Bound to Summon Real Culprits Even If Not Charge-Sheeted”: Supreme Court Restores Summoning of Accused Named in FIR but Dropped by Police , Supreme Court of India deciding a contentious issue under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order that had quashed the summoning of Rajendra Prasad Yadav, a person named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted by the police. Reversing the High Court’s finding, the Court emphatically held that “a court must not allow a guilty person to escape justice merely because the police chose not to file a charge sheet against him,” restoring the summoning order issued by the Trial Court.

The Supreme Court reiterated that summoning under Section 319 CrPC is an essential tool “to ensure that the real offender does not escape the clutches of law” and clarified that “the degree of satisfaction must be more than prima facie, yet less than the standard required for conviction.” The ruling significantly clarifies the power of courts during trial proceedings and fortifies the duty of courts to proceed against all involved in serious offences, irrespective of investigative lapses.

A Named Accused Excluded by Police but Implicated by Eyewitnesses

The genesis of the case lies in a brutal incident that occurred on 29th November 2017, in which the appellant, Shiv Baran, witnessed his brother being assaulted fatally. In his First Information Report (FIR), the appellant named four accused—Rahul, Dinesh, Rajendra, and Shiv Moorat—alleging that “they came to my house, armed with sticks, batons and axes, abused and assaulted us, leading to my brother’s death.”

Despite this, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet on 24th February 2018 against only two accused, Dinesh Yadav and Shiv Moorat, excluding Rajendra Prasad Yadav, citing his alleged absence from the crime scene.

However, during trial proceedings, three prosecution witnesses—PW1, PW2, and PW3—all consistently implicated Rajendra, testifying that he arrived with other accused armed with a baton and actively participated in the assault. Based on this testimony, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon Rajendra.

Initially, the Sessions Court rejected the application, but after remand by the High Court, the Trial Court allowed it on 28th September 2023. The High Court later overturned this order, wrongly observing that the evidence was insufficient to summon Rajendra since “PW-1 had not assigned any specific role” and there was “absence of strong motive.”

Application of Section 319 CrPC

The principal legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether deposition during examination-in-chief, without cross-examination, can constitute sufficient evidence for summoning an accused under Section 319 CrPC, particularly when such person was omitted from the police charge sheet despite being named in the FIR.

Justice Sanjay Karol, writing for the Bench, reaffirmed that the purpose of Section 319 CrPC is to ensure “no guilty person escapes the dragnet of law” and stressed that the provision “casts a duty upon the court to ensure that the real culprit is prosecuted and punished.”

The Court emphatically observed: “The object is to ensure that no guilty person should be allowed to escape the process of law, which is based on the doctrine of judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (The judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted).”

Relying heavily on the Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, the Court clarified that examination-in-chief alone is sufficient to invoke Section 319 powers, observing:

“Once examination-in-chief is conducted, the statement becomes part of the record… it is evidence as per law and in the true sense… the court can proceed against a person as long as it is satisfied that the evidence prima facie necessitates bringing such person to trial.”

Refuting the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court stated:

“The High Court misapplied the legal standard, adopting the rigorous test applicable at the conclusion of trial, whereas under Section 319, the standard is short of conviction but stricter than mere suspicion.”

Supreme Court Slams High Court’s “Mini-Trial” Approach

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court for “virtually conducting a mini-trial” at the summoning stage, relying on affidavits given to police authorities rather than on court-recorded testimony. The Bench remarked:

“The High Court fell into error by discarding credible in-court testimony, wrongly relying on extraneous affidavits submitted to the police… all such questions of motive, sequence, and participation are to be determined at the culmination of trial, not at the summoning stage.”

Justice Karol reiterated that the presence of Rajendra was corroborated by consistent deposition of PW1, PW2, and PW3, assigning him a definite role of carrying a weapon and participating in the assault.

“When three eyewitnesses consistently name Rajendra and assign him a specific role, it is not only permissible but obligatory for the court to summon him to face trial.”

Summoning Restored, Duty of Trial Courts Reaffirmed

In a decisive conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s quashing order and restoring the summoning order issued by the Trial Court. The Court directed all parties to cooperate with the Trial Court and ordered the trial to be concluded within 18 months.

“The power under Section 319 CrPC is not to be exercised casually, but where credible evidence surfaces, the court is duty-bound to ensure such person faces trial… this is indispensable to the guarantee of a fair trial,” the Court held.

The Court emphasized: “Summoning under Section 319 CrPC is an instrument to safeguard the fairness of criminal trials and to uphold the victim’s right to justice.”

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has reiterated its unwavering commitment to ensuring that all culpable individuals are brought before the law, regardless of police investigation outcomes. The judgment fortifies the position of trial courts by emphasizing that credible courtroom testimony, even in examination-in-chief, is sufficient to summon uncharged accused under Section 319 CrPC. The Court sent a strong message against judicial overreach in preliminary stages, cautioning against treating summoning applications as mini-trials.

The decision will likely serve as a robust precedent reinforcing judicial diligence in criminal trials and ensuring that the ends of justice are not defeated by investigative shortcomings.

Date of Decision: 16th July 2025