Allahabad High Court

RAMAN AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 9 March 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The summoning order under Section 319 CrPC is valid as the trial court considered trial‑court evidence that is more than prima facie, and the revision is dismissed.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by Raman and four others challenging a summoning order under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The revisionists argued that they were initially named in the FIR but later found to be falsely implicated, and no charge sheet was filed against them. The State contended that trial‑court evidence recorded from three prosecution witnesses established a case more than prima facie against the revisionists, justifying their summons. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow the use of trial‑court evidence for Section 319 summons and require more than a mere prima facie case, the Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its extraordinary power. Consequently, the revision was dismissed and the original summoning order upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a person not originally accused can be summoned as an accused under Section 319 CrPC based on evidence recorded during trial.
Whether a mere prima facie case is sufficient for summoning under Section 319 CrPC or a higher threshold of evidence is required.
Whether evidence from the charge sheet or investigation diary can be used for summoning under Section 319 CrPC.
Whether cross‑examination of witnesses is a prerequisite before invoking Section 319 CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 452

Subjects

Section 319 CrPC
Summoning of additional accused
Prima facie evidence
Criminal revision
Trial evidence
Extraordinary judicial power
Cross‑examination not required

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1619 of 2026

Raman And 4 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Nitin Raj Singh, Raj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 and the learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the summoning order
dated 4.12.2025, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3,
Aligarh, by which the revisionists have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to
face trial in Session Trial No. 1812 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Mukesh @ Fadda and
others), arising out of case crime No. 446 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452,
302 IPC, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionist were
nominated in the FIR but during investigation, their nomination were found false,
Hence, no charge sheet was filed against them. The charge sheet has been filed against
other accused persons other than the revisionists.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that during trial, evidence of PW-
1, PW-2 and PW-3 had been rerecorded and they have impleaded the revisionists.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the revisionists were
named in the FIR and they have been wrongly exonerated in the charge sheet. The
statement of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 had been recorded before the learned trial court
and the evidence has been found much more than prima facie against them, hence they
have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C for the trial.

6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the impugned order has
rightly been passed by the learned trial court. He relied on Section 319 Cr.P.C. which
reads as under:-

"Section 319 Cr.P.C. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty
of offence.(1) 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
CRLR No. 1619 of 2026
2

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."

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held, and more particularly in the
Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab, (2014) 3
SCC 92, that the evidence recorded during trial can be considered for summoning an
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

8. The summoning of the revisionists by the impugned order dated 7.5.2024 was
passed by the learned trial court after perusing the statements recorded during trial.
The learned trial court also considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Hardeep Singh (supra), Brijendra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan;
2017 Lawsuit SC 484. The ingredients and conditions required for summoning an
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as elaborated in Hardeep Singh (supra), stand duly
satisfied.

9. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asim Akhtar Versus The State of West
Bengal and another, 2024 INSC 794 that complicity of any person sought to be
arrayed as an accused can be decided with or without conducting cross-examination of
the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and there is no mandate to decide the
application under section 319 Cr.P.C. before cross examination of other witnesses. It
is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (supra), that the word
"evidence" used in section 319 Cr.P.C. indicates, the word "evidence" is limited to the
evidence recorded during trial. The summoning of accused under section 319 Cr.P.C.
is settled, that this power is an extraordinary power, which should be used sparingly
with circumspection and while passing the summoning order under section 319
Cr.P.C. court must consider whether more than prima facie case made out, or not;
mere prima facie case is not sufficient.

10. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Omi Versus State of M.P. (2025) 2 SCC
621, that trial court can add an individual as accused only on the basis of the evidence
adduced before it and not on the basis of the materials available in the charge sheet or
the case diary because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary
do not constitute evidence. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Baran
Versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1457 that trial court can exercise power
to summon an additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. only on the basis of the
evidence adduced before it and not any other material collected during investigation.

11. It is settled law by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra) that
evidence recorded before the trial court is the evidence which has to be considered for
summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The nature of the evidence has to
be more than prima facie. The cross examination is even not necessary. If the evidence
CRLR No. 1619 of 2026
3

recorded during trial is of upto the extent that if unrebutted, it would lead their
conviction, which is sufficient to summon the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In
the present case, the victim as well as her father had supported the prosecutions story
and specified the role of the revisionists in the said crime. The contradiction in the
statements under Sections 161, 164 and the statement and deposition recorded before
the trial court that have to be seen and analyzed by the learned trial court at the end of
the trial after completion of the entire evidence.

12. PW-1 Jagdish had specifically deposed before the learned trial court that the said
incident is of 16.8.2021 at 8.00 pm. He deposed that when my son Amar Singh aged
about 35 years were going upstairs, at that time my co-villagers, Bankat, son of
Raman Lal, Raman lal son of Bhurey Singh, Hanshraj son of Suwa, Atal son of
Roshan Singh and Satyaveer son of Chokhey Lal had surrounded my son Amar Singh
and Banker and Hanshraj had fired on him and he became seriously injured. I took my
son in injured condition with the assistance of Bhikki and Chandrapal at Medical
College, Aligarh, where doctor has declared my son as dead. My wife Omwati and
wife of deceased, Radha had saw when the accused person fired to my son. The entire
incident took place infront of ourselves.

13. The statement of Smt. Radha has also recorded as PW-2, who is the wife of
deceased. She has supported the prosecution story that on 16.8.2021 around 8.00 p.m,
when my husband Amar Singh was going upstair, at that time co-villagers, Raman,
Satyaveer, Bankat, Atal and Hanshraj came and they were having arms and
ammunition in their hands and they fired to my husband. At that time my father-in-law
and mother-in-law were also present at the house.

14. Smt. Omwati has recorded her statement as PW-3, who is mother of deceased and
she completely supported the prosecution story. At the date of incident on 16.8.2021
at 8.00 p.m, when she alongwith her daughter-in-law were making preparation for
food, at that time co-villagers, Raman, Bankat, Atal, Hanshraj and Satyaveer entered
into the house. Bankat and Hanshraj had fired to my son Amar Singh. Co-villagers
took my son for treatment at Aligarh.

15. There are specific deposition by these three witnesses, who are father, wife and
mother of the deceased. the incident is of grave and serious in nature and was occurred
in the premises of the informant. The nature of the evidence is much more than prima
facie and it lead to very close to conviction if goes unrebutted.

16. In view of the above, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned
order dated 4.12.2025. The revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed.

March 10, 2026
sfa/
(Abdul Shahid,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…