In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that trial courts can summon additional accused based solely on the unrebutted testimony of a witness, without waiting for cross-examination.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan ruled in favor of an appellant-complainant who had sought the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The trial court, relying on the witness’s initial testimony, had granted the request. However, the High Court overturned this decision, prompting the complainant to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court overstepped its authority by reassessing evidence without first establishing whether the trial court’s decision was legally flawed—an essential criterion for revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC. Citing past rulings, including the landmark Hardeep Singh case, the Court emphasized that Section 319 CrPC allows courts to summon additional accused when the available evidence suggests a higher threshold than a mere prima facie case but does not yet require certainty of conviction.
Key clarifications included that “evidence” under Section 319 CrPC isn’t restricted to material tested by cross-examination and can include statements recorded during a pre-trial inquiry. The ruling also reaffirmed that individuals not originally named in an FIR, or even those discharged, could still be summoned if emerging evidence justifies their trial alongside existing accused.
Applying these principles, the Court restored the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that the appellant’s testimony—describing how the additional accused allegedly facilitated a stabbing and issued death threats—was sufficient to warrant further examination at trial.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has reinforced the power of trial courts to act on early witness testimony, preventing procedural delays that could hinder justice.
