Summary
The Supreme Court restored applications to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC for fresh consideration. The courts below had effectively demanded an infallible case establishing guilt rather than the correct intermediate threshold. Strong and cogent evidence exceeding the charge-framing prima facie standard was required, but not a final conviction assessment. The trial court was to reconsider the full record independently; the Supreme Court neither directed summoning nor determined the proposed accused’s guilt.
Issues
- Whether the correct evidentiary threshold was applied to the applications for summoning additional accused.
Held
- Section 319 is extraordinary and discretionary, to be exercised sparingly upon strong and cogent evidence. Its threshold exceeds a prima facie charge-framing case but falls short of deciding that uncontroverted evidence would warrant conviction. (¶ 10–12)
- The courts below had examined the request as though guilt beyond reasonable doubt or an infallible prosecution case had to be shown. The witness had attributed specific roles, requiring consideration under the proper standard rather than a final guilt inquiry. (¶ 13–14)
- The later application had also been rejected by reference to the impugned orders. Both applications required reconsideration on the evidence and applicable law, without influence from factual observations in this judgment. (¶ 15–17)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; impugned orders set aside and prosecution applications under Section 319 CrPC restored for independent reconsideration. No merits finding or direction automatically to summon the proposed accused.