Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that power can be exercised under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) on the basis of the statement of the witness without cross- examination. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others. (2025). 

What was the Background of Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others (2025) Case?   

• Satbir Singh (the appellant) filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to summon Rajesh Kumar, Sagar @ Bittoo, Niraj, and Ankit as additional accused. 
• The case involves offences under Sections 323, 324, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 
• On 9th February 2020, both Mukesh (the principal accused) and Satbir Singh were admitted to hospitals with injuries after an assault. 
• Initially, Mukesh gave a statement resulting in an FIR against Satbir, but police filed a closure report after investigation. 
• When Satbir regained consciousness on 14th February 2020, he stated that while playing volleyball, he had an altercation with Mukesh who later returned with Neeraj, Sagar, and Ankit carrying weapons. 
• According to Satbir, Neeraj held him while Mukesh stabbed him twice (including near the heart), and Sagar and Ankit beat him with sticks. Rajesh allegedly threatened him. 
• Medical reports confirmed Satbir had two injuries from sharp weapons, with one chest injury classified as life-threatening. 
• Police investigations conducted by multiple officers did not find evidence of involvement by Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar, or Ankit. 
• Charges were filed against Mukesh alone, and trial began with Satbir testifying as PW-1 on 27th April 2021. 
• During trial, Satbir filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the other four men. 
• The Sessions Judge allowed this application, but when the four men challenged it, the High Court set aside the order. 
• The High Court noted discrepancies between Satbir's testimony and medical evidence, as injuries allegedly caused by the other men were not corroborated by medical reports. 
• The High Court also considered that the fight arose spontaneously during a volleyball game between opposing teams, with no prior enmity between the parties. 
• The matter was hence before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court first of all laid down the law on additional prosecution as provided under Section 319 of CrPC. 
• The Court observed that Neeraj is Mukesh's sibling, and according to the appellant (Satbir), Neeraj held him while Mukesh stabbed him. 
• Rajesh allegedly threatened the appellant saying, "Chaaku maar ke tassali kar di, agar dobaara zinda gaon me ayega to mai goli se uda dunga" (We've satisfied ourselves by stabbing you, if you come to the village alive again, I'll shoot you). 
• The Sessions Judge was satisfied that the tests laid down in the Hardeep Singh case were met, justifying the summoning of additional accused. 
• The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider the matter from the proper perspective and reached an incorrect conclusion. 
• Despite defense counsel's argument about police reports clearing Rajesh and Neeraj, the Court held that these reports weren't conclusive evidence of non-involvement. 
• The Sessions Judge had formed a satisfaction "higher than prima facie" about Rajesh and Neeraj’s involvement based on appellant’s testimony. 
• While the High Court had the power to adopt an "eyes on" approach in revision, the Supreme Court felt a "hands off" approach would have been more appropriate. 
• The Supreme Court concluded that the Sessions Judge's decision was plausible, not absurd, and didn't warrant interference by the High Court. 
• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Sessions Judge's order, allowing the appeal. 
• The Court clarified that its observations shouldn't be construed as an opinion on Rajesh and Neeraj's actual involvement in the crime. 
• The Sessions Judge was encouraged to complete the trial expeditiously according to law.

What is Section 319 of CrPC? 

• This provision provides for power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence. 
• This is contained in Section 358 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• It is based on the doctrine judex damantur cum nocens absolvitur which means Judges condemned when guilty is acquitted. This section states that- 
  • Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. 
  • Where such a person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. 
  • Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. 
  • Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then— 
    • The proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; 
    • Subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. 
• Essential Elements of Section 319: 
  • There is any enquiry or trial of an offence. 
  • It appears from the evidence that any person, not being an accused has committed any offence for which, the person to be tried together with the accused.

What are the Essential Points Laid Down in the Landmark Case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014)? 

• The Court in this answered the following relevant questions with regard to Section 319 of CrPC: 
  • What is the stage at which power under Section 319 of CrPC can be exercised? Whether the word “evidence” used in the section is limited to the evidence recorded during trial? 
    • The Court clarified in this case that the Sessions Judge need not wait for “evidence” under Section 319 of CrPC to become available before summoning an additional accused. 
    • The Court further held that Section 319 uses two terms “inquiry” and “trial”. “Inquiry” here must refer to pre trial inquiry. 
    • Examples of inquiries include those conducted under Sections 200, 201, 202, and 398 of the CrPC. 
    • Materials that came before the Court during these inquiries can be used for exercising the power under Section 319 of CrPC. 
    • The term “evidence” in Section 319 of CrPC should be interpreted broadly and not literally limited to evidence during trial. 
  • Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) CrPC could only mean evidence tested by cross examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned? 
    • The Court held that for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC it is not necessary that there should be cross examination.