Summary
The Supreme Court restored an order summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC on the injured eyewitness’s testimony. Their omission from the charge sheet following a police inquiry did not bar the trial court from acting on evidence given in court. Examination-in-chief can support summoning without awaiting cross-examination, subject to the strong evidentiary threshold governing this extraordinary power. The High Court had improperly assessed possible exaggeration and prospects of conviction at that stage.
Issues
- Whether an injured eyewitness’s testimony justified summoning persons named in the FIR but omitted from the charge sheet.
- Whether cross-examination or fresh allegations beyond the FIR were necessary before exercising Section 319.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The trial court could summon additional accused on sufficiently strong evidence emerging in court, including examination-in-chief, notwithstanding their omission from the charge sheet. (¶¶ 6.1-6.4, 7-8.2)
Held
- Section 319 is an extraordinary discretionary power, used sparingly on strong and cogent evidence. The threshold exceeds that for framing charge but falls short of a conclusion that unrebutted evidence would produce conviction; no opinion of guilt is required. (¶ 6.1.6)
- Examination-in-chief is evidence and the court need not await cross-examination. Persons named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted may be summoned when evidence in court warrants it; the distinct safeguards concerning persons judicially discharged remain applicable. (¶ 6.1.5-6.4)
- The injured informant consistently named the proposed accused. Repeating the FIR account in testimony did not disqualify that evidence, and the police inquiry did not prevent the court from acting upon it. (¶ 7)
- The High Court’s assessment that the alleged attack should have caused worse injuries and that the account was exaggerated prematurely evaluated merits. Its order was set aside and the trial court’s summoning order restored, without determining guilt. (¶ 8-8.2)
Result
Appeals allowed; additional accused directed to face trial under the restored summoning order.