Summary
Summoning six persons under Section 319 CrPC was upheld despite police omitting them from the charge-sheet. The informant and injured eyewitness gave trial testimony identifying their presence and specific roles. Earlier orders releasing them from custody were not judicial discharge orders. Applying Hardeep Singh, the Court reiterated that strong and cogent trial evidence, exceeding the ordinary charge-framing threshold, was required, though examination-in-chief could suffice without awaiting cross-examination.
Issues
- Whether persons omitted from the charge-sheet could be summoned on the eyewitnesses’ trial evidence.
- Whether earlier custody-release orders barred exercise of Section 319.
- What evidentiary threshold and procedural safeguards governed summoning.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Permitted summoning omitted accused on sufficiently strong trial evidence; release from custody was not discharge barring that course. (¶¶ 7.3–7.10, 8–10)
Held
- Section 319 is an extraordinary discretionary power to be exercised sparingly on strong and cogent evidence. Its threshold exceeds the prima facie case for framing a charge but does not require a finding that unrebutted evidence would lead to conviction. (¶ 7.6)
- Examination-in-chief can supply evidence for summoning without awaiting cross-examination. Persons named in the FIR but omitted from the charge-sheet are not immunised when trial evidence establishes the requisite basis. (¶¶ 7.5, 7.8–7.10)
- Here the informant and injured eyewitness had also been cross-examined and attributed specific roles to the appellants. Their trial depositions justified summoning; no accepted closure report after an opportunity for the informant was shown. (¶¶ 6.1, 8)
- The earlier orders released the appellants from judicial custody and were not discharge orders in the strict sense. The special safeguards concerning a genuinely discharged person therefore did not bar these summons. (¶¶ 7.7, 9)
Result
Appeal dismissed. High Court order confirming the trial court’s summons under Section 319 CrPC upheld; appellants to face trial with the other accused. No determination of guilt made.