“‘No conclusive finding can be given merely on police reports’: Supreme Court sets aside High Court order refusing to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC”
Safiya Malik
The Supreme Court, Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had refused to summon two individuals as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the Sessions Judge's decision to summon the individuals was based on satisfaction greater than a prima facie standard and in line with the constitutional interpretation of Section 319. Directing restoration of the Sessions Judge’s order, the Court stated that “no conclusive finding can be given that Rajesh and Neeraj were not involved merely on the basis of such reports.” It further observed that the High Court had not approached the matter from the correct legal perspective and had reached an incorrect conclusion.
The matter arose from a criminal appeal that originated from Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10653 of 2024 filed by the appellant, Satbir Singh. The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 7 March 2024 issued by a single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court, by the impugned order, had allowed a revisional application filed by Rajesh Kumar, Neeraj, Sagar alias Bittoo, and Ankit, thereby setting aside an earlier order passed on 13 September 2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. The Sessions Judge had allowed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to summon the above-named individuals as additional accused to face trial along with Mukesh, the principal accused.
Notice on the special leave petition was issued on 13 August 2024, limited to Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj. The special leave petition against Sagar alias Bittoo and Ankit stood dismissed. The appeal was argued by senior counsel representing the appellant and the respondents, with the State of Haryana also entering appearance.
On 9 February 2020, an incident occurred at village Rasulpur Khurd, District Karnal, during which Satbir Singh and Mukesh sustained injuries. They were admitted to Civil Hospital, Karnal, and Ram Chander Memorial Hospital, Karnal, respectively. The police initially could not record statements due to the condition of the injured. Mukesh’s statement was later recorded, based on which an FIR was registered. Medical examination indicated a fracture, but expert opinion did not rule out the possibility of self-inflicted injuries. Subsequently, a closure report was filed against Satbir Singh.
Upon regaining consciousness on 14 February 2020, the appellant gave a statement implicating several persons. He stated that he was in his village on leave from the Indian Army and had been playing volleyball when an altercation occurred with Mukesh. Fifteen minutes later, Mukesh returned armed with a knife and accompanied by Neeraj, Sagar, and Ankit, who were allegedly carrying lathis and other weapons. According to the appellant, Neeraj held him while Mukesh inflicted knife injuries on his waist and near his heart. He also alleged that Sagar and Ankit assaulted him, and Rajesh threatened him, stating, “Chaaku maar ke tassali kar di, agar dobaara zinda gaon me ayega to mai goli se uda dunga.”
Medical records confirmed two sharp weapon injuries, including a chest wound categorized as dangerous to life. A cross-case was registered against the aforementioned individuals. A knife was recovered from Mukesh on 28 February 2020.
During investigation, the involvement of Rajesh and Ankit was not established, and similar findings were recorded by multiple Deputy Superintendents of Police. Consequently, a charge sheet under Sections 307, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC was filed only against Mukesh, and the case was committed for trial.
The trial commenced with framing of charges under Sections 324, 307, 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act against Mukesh. The appellant, appearing as PW-1, reiterated his allegations in his examination-in-chief and filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the other individuals. The Sessions Judge allowed the application, which was challenged in revision before the High Court.
The High Court, in its impugned order, stated, “Satbir had suffered only two injuries in the present case and both injuries were caused with a knife by Mukesh Kumar… the injuries caused by the petitioners No. 2 and 4 are clearly missing in the medical reports.” It further recorded that “in all the investigations, it was found that all the petitioners had not participated in the present case and their presence at the place of occurrence could not be established.” The High Court ultimately held that “there was not sufficient material on record, which could serve as a ground for summoning the petitioners to face trial.”
The Supreme Court examined the reasoning adopted by the Sessions Judge and the High Court in light of the legal principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92]. The Court quoted extensively from the Constitution Bench ruling, reiterating the legal standards applicable to Section 319 CrPC. The Court stated: “Though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.”
The bench also referred to Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2023) 7 SCC 344], stating: “The court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power conferred by Section 319 CrPC, must not act mechanically… its satisfaction must be more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge being framed.”
The Court noted that Neeraj, the sibling of Mukesh, was accused of holding the appellant during the attack, while Rajesh allegedly issued threats. It held that the Sessions Judge had formed the requisite satisfaction that the allegations against Rajesh and Neeraj required a full trial. The Court found that the High Court “failed to consider the matter from the proper perspective and arrived at an entirely wrong conclusion.”
Rejecting the argument that police reports exonerating the individuals should be dispositive, the Court stated: “We are… of the opinion that no conclusive finding can be given that Rajesh and Neeraj were not involved merely on the basis of such reports.”
It further observed that “the conclusion of the Sessions Judge was a plausible conclusion and not an absurd one so as to warrant interference by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.”
The Supreme Court, having considered the materials and legal standards, issued the following directive:
“The impugned order of the High Court stands set aside and that of the Sessions Judge is restored. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.”
The Court also recorded: “We clarify, no observation made hereinbefore shall be construed as an expression of opinion as regards the involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj in the crime and whatever we have said is solely for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.”
It encouraged expeditious trial proceedings, directing that “The Sessions Judge is encouraged to take the trial to its logical conclusion, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Senior Advocate
Case Title: Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 416
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan
[Read/Download order]
