Summary
Refusal to summon an additional accused under section 319 CrPC was affirmed. Naming him in the FIR and attributing an overt act did not overcome contradictory trial testimony and material placing him at work elsewhere, including the complainant’s cross-examination. The extraordinary summoning power required strong, cogent evidence beyond the threshold for framing a charge. The pending trial was to continue without treating these observations as findings on its merits.
Issues
- Whether the evidence justified summoning the person omitted from the charge sheet as an additional accused.
Provisions considered
- Section 319(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Permitted proceeding against a non-accused on trial evidence meeting the heightened summoning threshold, which was not met here. (¶ 8–14)
Held
- Section 319 is discretionary and extraordinary, to be used sparingly upon strong and cogent evidence. Mere naming or some incriminating material is insufficient; satisfaction must exceed that required to frame a charge without amounting to a determination of guilt. (¶ 9–11)
- Investigation placed the proposed accused at his workplace; the complainant’s cross-examination contradicted his allegation of presence, and the second witness’s account also raised doubts. The concurrent refusal to summon was justified on this record. (¶ 12–15)
- The observations concerned only the summoning proceedings and were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the main prosecution. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal dismissed. Trial to proceed according to law, uninfluenced on its merits by observations in the summoning appeal and revision.