Supreme Court Restores Sessions Judge's Order Summoning Two as Additional Accused Under Section 319 CrPC

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard an appeal by Satbir Singh challenging the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s revisional order that set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Sessions Judge had rightly exercised power under Section 319 CrPC in summoning Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj as additional accused to stand trial along with the principal accused Mukesh.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 7 March 2024 and restored the Sessions Judge’s order dated 13 September 2021 summoning Rajesh and Neeraj. The Court held that the Sessions Judge had formed a “plausible conclusion” higher than a mere prima facie view and that the High Court erred in substituting its own satisfaction for that of the trial court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross‑examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC.” The Court further emphasised that no final opinion was being expressed on guilt and directed the Sessions Judge to conclude the trial expeditiously: “The Sessions Judge is encouraged to take the trial to its logical conclusion, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.”

Background

The dispute arose from an incident on 9 February 2020 in village Rasulpur Khurd, Karnal district, in which both Mukesh and Satbir (the present appellant) were injured. Satbir later, as PW‑1, alleged that while playing volleyball an altercation occurred and Mukesh left threatening to “teach a lesson.” He stated that Mukesh returned with a knife, accompanied by Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo and Ankit armed with lathis; Neeraj allegedly held Satbir while Mukesh stabbed him twice, one blow penetrating up to the lungs. Satbir also alleged that Rajesh threatened: “Chaaku maar ke tassali kar di, agar dobaara zinda gaon me ayega to mai goli se uda dunga.” Medical records recorded two sharp‑weapon injuries on Satbir, and the Investigating Officer ultimately registered a cross‑case under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506/34 IPC against Mukesh and others; a knife was recovered pursuant to Mukesh’s disclosure.

Several police enquiries and reports by Deputy Superintendents of Police and the Station House Officer did not find conclusive involvement of Rajesh and Ankit. Mukesh alone was charge‑sheeted and the trial against him commenced. After Satbir’s examination‑in‑chief on 27 April 2021, he sought summoning of Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar and Ankit under Section 319 CrPC. The Sessions Judge allowed the application and summoned Rajesh and Neeraj; the other two respondents were not part of the Supreme Court challenge.

The High Court, on revision, set aside the Sessions Judge’s order observing that medical records did not corroborate injuries allegedly caused by some of the petitioners and that multiple police investigations had found no participation by them; the High Court concluded there was not “sufficient material” to summon them. The Supreme Court, applying settled law from Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent authorities, held that the trial court’s satisfaction need only be stronger than prima facie but need not amount to satisfaction of likely conviction, and found the Sessions Judge’s conclusion to be a permissible exercise of discretion. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations were limited to disposing of the appeal and not a comment on the merits of the case, and ordered that the trial proceed.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1487 OF 2025 Case Title: Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gagan Gupta, Senior Counsel (for Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj); State counsel (for State of Haryana)