SHRI RAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7512 of 2025

Shri Ram
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Arun Kumar Shukla, Ram Saumitra
                                   Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : G.A., Prabhakar Singh

Court No. - 51
                   HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Saumitra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant,
learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. Despite service of
notice, none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.07.2025
passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur, in Special
Sessions Trial No. 492 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2021),
registered under Sections 354, 504, 307 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da),
3(1)(dha), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur, whereby the learned Trial Court
summoned the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial along with
other accused persons.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 lodged a First
Information Report dated 28.06.2021 in respect of an alleged incident dated
27.06.2021 at about 9:00 PM. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that the appellant,
along with co-accused Rakesh @ Sultana and Satya Prakash, attempted to
outrage the modesty of the informant while she was accompanying her
disabled husband, and upon resistance, co-accused Rakesh allegedly fired
upon her husband, causing injuries. During investigation, the injured was
medically examined and the statements of the informant under Section 164
Cr.P.C., the injured, as well as several eye-witnesses under Section 161
Cr.P.C., were recorded.

4. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, multiple
independent witnesses denied the presence of the appellant at the place of
occurrence and supported his innocence. Upon consideration of the entire
material collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer exonerated
the appellant and submitted the charge-sheet only against the co-accused
persons. However, during trial, on the basis of the depositions of P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
and the learned Trial Court, without any new or cogent evidence and
without proper application of judicial mind, summoned the appellant to face
                                                                 CRLA No. 7512 of 2025
                                    2


trial vide order dated 10.07.2025, which is under challenge in the present
appeal.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn
attention to the case reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, Hardeep Singh vs. State
of Punjab, along with other connected petitions, and has referred to
paragraphs 105 and 106 of the judgment, which are reproduced
hereinbelow:
      "105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-
      ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases
      where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised
      because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some
      other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where
      strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence
      led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a
      casual and cavalier manner.

 106. 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 a 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 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C., the purpose of providing
      that if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has
      committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be
      tried together with the accused." The words used are not "for which such
      person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting
      under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."

6. Referring to the aforesaid, he submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and
extraordinary, and thus the same should be exercised sparingly. It has
further been held that much stronger evidence than mere probability of
complicity is required where the Trial Court exercises power under Section
319 Cr.P.C.

7. He has further drawn attention to the case reported in (2017) 7 SCC 706,
Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, and referred to paragraphs 14 and
15 of the judgment, which are quoted hereinbelow:
      "14. When we translate the aforesaid principles with their application to
      the facts of this case, we gather an impression that the trial court acted in
      a casual and cavalier manner in passing the summoning order against
      the appellants. ... Such orders cannot stand judicial scrutiny."

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the learned Trial Court has
thoroughly discussed all relevant aspects of the matter in the impugned
order and, therefore, the said order does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity. Hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
                                                          CRLA No. 7512 of 2025
                                3


9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this
Court finds that the appellant was admittedly not charge-sheeted and was
exonerated by the Investigating Officer after a thorough investigation,
wherein his presence at the place of occurrence was not found.

10. This Court further finds that no new, strong, or cogent evidence has
emerged during the course of trial so as to justify invocation of powers
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court itself has observed that upon
perusal of all the aforesaid evidence and after analyzing the entire material
on record, it is evident that from the statements given by the witnesses
before the Court, the involvement of the accused Shriram along with the co-
accused in the commission of the alleged incident is prima facie disclosed.
The statements of the prosecution witnesses, at best, amount to mere
reiteration of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and do not satisfy the higher
degree of satisfaction required for summoning a person under Section 319
Cr.P.C.

11. Further, Section 319 Cr.P.C. envisages an extraordinary power conferred
upon the Court to do substantial justice and, therefore, should be exercised
cautiously, particularly where the investigating agency has found no
evidence against the person sought to be summoned. The very purpose of
Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no guilty person escapes trial;
therefore, the discovery of further evidence must disclose more than a prima
facie case.

12. The settled law is that the Court should not exercise its power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a casual or cavalier manner; however, where the
Court arrives at a conclusion that there exists more than prima facie
evidence against an accused, such power can certainly be exercised.

13. In the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), it has been
held that Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power to
be exercised only when there is strong and cogent evidence against a person.

14. The Apex Court in Brijendra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan
(supra), has also held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised at any stage during the trial and that “evidence” means the
material brought before the Court during trial, whereas the material
collected during investigation can be used only for corroboration.

15. The Apex Court, in the above-noted case, further observed that the trial
court must record its satisfaction to the effect that the evidence adduced by
the prosecution, if left unrebutted, would lead to the conviction of the
accused persons. In the absence of such satisfaction, the trial court should
refrain from exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the present
case, no such satisfaction has been recorded by the Court below to the effect
that there exists more than a prima facie case, or a much stronger case,
against the appellant and that, if such evidence remains unrebutted, there is a
likelihood of conviction. The learned Trial Court has thus failed to properly
apply the law laid down by the Apex Court.
                                                                                             CRLA No. 7512 of 2025
                                                                    4


                                    16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
                                    impugned order dated 10.07.2025 suffers from illegality and perversity and
                                    is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

                                    17. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed, and the impugned
                                    order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
                                    Fatehpur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 492 of 2019 (arising out of Case
                                    Crime No. 122 of 2021), registered under Sections 354, 504, and 307 IPC
                                    and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
                                    Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur, is hereby
                                    set aside and reversed so far as it relates to the present appellant.



                                                                                           (Madan Pal Singh,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    pks




Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad