The bench of Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal while reiterating the law on section 319 CRPC held that "It is not mere suspicion on the basis of which an additional accused could be summoned. Only where strong and cogent evidence is available against a person from the evidence produced before the   Court,   which could lead to his conviction, that such a power could be exercised. It could not be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner."

The bench placing reliance on the judgment of the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, held that in the absence of such eventuality, an additional accused could not be summoned under section 319 CRPC.

The Apex Court noted the facts that the appellant established his business of manufacturing tools in 2003. A complaint was lodged for the murder of the complainant. It was alleged that the deceased used to work in the firm of the appellant. The appellant was called by the police and he furnished the entire information. During the investigation, an alleged eye-witness was found and his statement was recorded u/s 164 CRPC. wife of the complainant made a false complaint concealing these facts. Police submitted charge-sheet against 2 persons. appellant was named as a witness. The statement of various witnesses was recorded. The appellant was examined as PW-6. none of the witnesses stated anything against him. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application u/s 319 CRPC on the basis of certain vague allegations of some witnesses. Trial Court dismissed the application.

The Supreme Court held that "If   the   evidence   already   on   record   produced   by   the prosecution   is   considered   on   the   touchstone   of   law   laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh & Ors. case (supra),  it does not go beyond suspicion. There is no eye­witness to the   occurrence.  All what has been stated by PW­2 (brother of the deceased) is that the deceased who was working with the appellant as Manager though claimed to be a partner by the complainant, that there   was   some   dispute   regarding   money   between   the appellant   and   the   deceased.     Rajesh   Sharma   whose statement was got recorded by police under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. also retracted therefrom while appearing in court as PW­5.  He stated that it was recorded by the police under threat of involvement in some false case.   He also did not raise any finger towards the appellant.  Rather he was the first   person   to   visit   the   house   of  the   deceased  after  the murder and informed the appellant to reach there.  He was working as part time cook with the family of the deceased. Without any material brought on record, the widow of the deceased merely stated that she is sure that the appellant had committed murder of her husband as there was no other  enemy.   One  of the brothers of  the  deceased who appeared as PW­1, who was not present at the spot, did not utter a single word against the appellant.

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 644 OF 2023
Vikas Rathi
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr.         

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances of the Advocates:-

For Petitioner(s) 
Mr. N.K. Mody, Sr. Adv.
 Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR
 Ms. Meena Sehrawat, Adv.
 Mr. Prabuddha Singh Gour, Adv.
 Ms. Ishita M Puranik, Adv.
 Mr. Birendra Bikram, Adv.

For Respondent(s) 
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR
 Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR
 Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv.
 Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.
 Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv.
 Mr. S.c.tripathi, Adv.
 Mrs. Pragya Verma, Adv.
 Mr. Shailja Kant Dubey, Adv. 

Related stories:-

Power to summon persons u/s 319 CRPC can be used before acquittal or before sentence is pronounced in the case of conviction: Supreme Court

Section 319 CrPC: Power to implicate additional accused during trial

'The court can invoke Section 319 CrPC at any time before end of trial' Amicus Curiae Nagamuthu tells the Supreme Court