Pre-Summoning Evidence U/S 319 CrPC Insufficient for Conviction

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court, in Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Guddu Singh v. State of U.P. (2026), acquitted a murder accused who had been summoned to face trial under Section 319 CrPC (Section 358 of BNSS). The Court held that evidence recorded prior to the summoning of an accused cannot form the basis of his conviction, as such reliance directly violates Section 273 CrPC, which mandates that all evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused.

What was the Background of Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Guddu Singh v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• A case was registered in connection with the murder of Vijay Kumar Singh, who succumbed to gunshot injuries allegedly fired by four accused persons. 
• In the chargesheet, the appellant (Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Guddu Singh) was not named, as the police could not establish his involvement in the incident. 
• During the trial of the four charge-sheeted accused, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed to summon the appellant, which was allowed in June 2012. 
• The Section 319 CrPC application was based on the earlier testimonies of the injured complainant/PW-1 (Pintu Singh), the deceased's uncle (Indrapal Singh; testimony recorded in 2011), and an independent witness (Ajay Kumar Singh; testimony recorded in 2009). 
• After the appellant was summoned, PW-1 and the deceased's uncle, who were re-examined in 2013, completely resiled from their previous statements and denied the appellant's involvement in the case. 
• PW-1 categorically stated that he had falsely implicated the appellant in his earlier statement under pressure. 
• The independent witness never came forward to testify again after the appellant was summoned. 
• Despite this, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 r/w Section 149, Section 307 r/w Section 149, Section 148, and Section 506(2) IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment, by relying on the pre-summoning statements of the deceased's uncle and the independent witness. 
• The trial court reasoned that once testimonies have been acted upon to summon an accused under Section 319 CrPC, they cannot be ignored and can form the basis for conviction. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Allahabad High Court challenging his conviction.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Pre-Summoning Evidence Cannot Ground Conviction: 

• The Court held that the trial court severely erred in relying on the statement of the deceased's uncle implicating the appellant, as it was recorded before the appellant was summoned as an additional accused. 
• Such a statement cannot be read against the appellant, as it was recorded when he was neither present before the court nor party to the proceedings. 
• The trial court had acted on the statement recorded prior to summoning while ignoring the subsequent statement of the same witness, which categorically exonerated the appellant.

Violation of Section 273 CrPC: 

• The Court emphasised the mandatory requirement under Section 273 CrPC that all evidence taken in the course of a trial or proceeding shall be recorded in the presence of the accused. 
• Evidence recorded when the appellant had not yet been summoned and was not present before the court could not lawfully be relied upon by the trial court to record his conviction.

Section 319 CrPC — No Opinion on Guilt: 

• Relying on the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that there is no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused at the stage of summoning. 
• The power under Section 319 CrPC is only to add an accused to face trial and does not predetermine the question of guilt.

Outcome: 

• Finding no other evidence on record to establish the appellant's involvement in the alleged offence, the Court allowed his appeal and set aside the conviction. 
• The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant, and that the trial court's judgment, rendered without adverting to the aforesaid aspects, was unsustainable in law.

What is Section 358 of BNSS? 

Section 358 BNSS, 2023 — Power to Proceed Against Other Persons Appearing to be Guilty of Offence  

(Corresponds to Section 319, CrPC, 1973) 

Sub-section (1) — Power to Proceed: 

• Where, during any inquiry or trial, evidence reveals that a person not originally named as accused has committed an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person.

Sub-section (2) — Arrest or Summons: 

• If such person is not present before the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Sub-section (3) — Detention of Person Present: 

• Any person attending the Court, even if not under arrest or served with a summons, may be detained by the Court for the purpose of inquiry or trial into the offence he appears to have committed.

Sub-section (4) — Fresh Proceedings: 

• Where the Court proceeds against such person under Sub-section (1):  
  • The proceedings shall be commenced afresh and witnesses re-heard. 
  • Subject to the above, the case proceeds as if such person had been an accused when the Court originally took cognizance of the offence.