Summary
Summoning additional accused under Section 319 requires strong and cogent evidence exceeding the threshold for framing charge. The trial court could act on examination-in-chief but could not ignore extensive investigation material supporting alibi when evaluating that higher threshold. Its casual reliance on repeated accusations, and the High Court’s failure to address contrary material, were unsustainable.
Issues
- Whether the Section 319 summoning threshold was met despite substantial contrary investigation material.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Extraordinary discretionary power requires stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity. (¶ 11–15)
Held
- Examination-in-chief may suffice without awaiting cross-examination, but the power must be exercised sparingly and on the required higher satisfaction. (¶ 11–13)
- Witnesses repeated allegations already investigated; documentary and other material placed these appellants far from the scene. The courts were bound to consider that material in assessing whether stronger evidence of complicity had emerged. (¶ 14–15)
Result
Appeal allowed; order summoning appellants under Section 319 set aside.