Summary
The Court restored summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC on the basis of specific eyewitness testimony. The High Court wrongly preferred the investigative opinion of innocence and speculated about the absence of a particular overt act despite an unlawful-assembly charge. The stronger prima facie threshold was met without awaiting cross-examination; guilt remained for trial.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness’s examination-in-chief met the Section 319 summoning threshold.
- Whether investigative exoneration and absence of a separately attributed injury justified interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Evidence in examination-in-chief can justify addition of an accused when it meets the heightened prima facie standard; a final finding of guilt is neither required nor permissible at that stage. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6)
- Sections 141 and 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860For the alleged offences committed by an unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object, a separately assigned overt act was not essential to the summoning inquiry. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5)
Held
- Section 319 requires stronger evidence than mere probability or the ordinary charge-framing prima facie threshold, while remaining short of the satisfaction associated with conviction if unrebutted. Examination-in-chief can satisfy that standard without prior cross-examination. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- PW9 specifically described the additional accused as armed participants in the house attack, with firing when the assailants left. The High Court erred by treating the police opinion of innocence as decisive and speculating that an armed person would not leave without firing, contrary to the account before the trial court. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5)
- The unlawful-assembly allegations meant that absence of an individually attributed injury did not itself exclude liability. Detailed testing of the eyewitness account belonged to trial; the Court’s present decision required the respondent to face proceedings, without determining guilt. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court revisional order set aside and summoning restored. Trial directed to proceed according to law as expeditiously as possible.