Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge’s satisfaction to summon the additional accused was proper and the High Court erred in overturning it, so the Sessions Judge’s order is restored.

Summary

Satbir Singh, an army serviceman, was stabbed and assaulted by Mukesh and several others during a volleyball match dispute. He filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon Rajesh Kumar, Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo and Ankit as additional accused. The Sessions Judge allowed the application, but the High Court set aside that order, relying on police reports that found no involvement of the respondents. The Supreme Court examined the proper scope of Section 319, the nature of evidence required, and the degree of satisfaction needed, concluding that the Sessions Judge’s decision was a plausible one and not absurd. Consequently, the High Court’s interference was unwarranted, the Sessions Judge’s order was restored, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Sessions Judge’s order summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
At what stage can the power under Section 319 CrPC be exercised?
Whether the term “evidence” in Section 319(1) includes investigation material or is limited to trial evidence.
Can the court rely on examination‑in‑chief statements without cross‑examination to summon an accused under Section 319?
What degree of satisfaction is required to invoke Section 319 – must it be a likelihood of conviction?
Does the power under Section 319 extend to persons not named in the FIR, named but not charge‑sheeted, or discharged persons?

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(2), s. 193, s. 200, s. 201, s. 202, s. 319, s. 398
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 323, s. 324, s. 34, s. 506

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it set aside the order of the trial court summoning respondents as additional accused for facing trial along with the principal accused. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Altercation between the appellant-serving in Army and the accused, after which accused armed with a knife along with others armed with lathi and danda, came back – Appellant seriously injured after being stabbed by the accused in the waist and chest, while one of the co-accused had

Subjects

Summoning additional accusedAltercationAdopt an ‘eyes on’ approachAdopt ‘hands off’ approachPlausible conclusionRevisional court

Judgment

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 416

Satbir Singh
v.
Rajesh Kumar and Others
(Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2025)
01 April 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High
Court whereby it set aside the order of the trial court summoning
respondents as additional accused for facing trial along with the
principal accused.

Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to summon
additional accused – Altercation between the appellant-serving
in Army and the accused, after which accused armed with
a knife along with others armed with lathi and danda, came
back – Appellant seriously injured after being stabbed by the
accused in the waist and chest, while one of the co-accused
had caught hold of the appellant – Two others beat the
appellant and one threatened him – Cross case registered
against accused and co-accused – Charges were framed
against accused – Application u/s.319 by the appellant, for
summoning co-accused to face trial – Allowed by the Sessions
Judge, however set aside by the High Court – Interference:
Held: High Court failed to consider the matter from the proper
perspective and arrived at an entirely wrong conclusion – No
conclusive finding can be given that the co-accused-respondents
were not involved merely on the basis of reports of the Deputy
Superintendents of Police – Having regard to the version of the
appellant in course of examination-in-chief, the Sessions Judge
formed a satisfaction higher than a prima facie satisfaction of the
alleged involvement of the respondents and that their complicity in
the crime has to be examined and tested on evidence being led
at the trial – To ascertain whether the Sessions Judge in allowing
the application u/s.319 had acted mechanically or in a manner
not authorised by law or in derogation of the law, the High Court
was well within its competence to adopt an ‘eyes on’ approach,
* Author
2 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

considering the nature of power conferred on the High Court by
the Cr.PC as the revisional court, but regard being had to the
facts and circumstances, a ‘hands off’ approach would have been
advisable and the correct approach – Conclusion of the Sessions
Judge was a plausible one and not an absurd one so as to warrant
interference by the High Court – Impugned judgment set aside and
that of the Sessions Judge restored – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.34,
307, 323, 324, 506 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25. [Paras 13, 16-19]

Case Law Cited
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [2014] 2 SCR 1 : (2014) 3
SCC 92 – followed.
Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another [2023]
7 SCR 642 : (2023) 7 SCC 344 – referred to.

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act,
1959.

List of Keywords
Summoning additional accused; Altercation; Adopt an ‘eyes on’
approach; Adopta ‘hands off’ approach; Plausible conclusion;
Revisional court.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1487 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2024 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 1357 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Siddharth Jain, Sanjay Singh, Umang
Shankar, Vidyut Kayarkar, Shailendra Negi.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Manisha Aggarwal Narain, A.A.G., Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv.,
Nawab Singh Jaglan, Rishi Raj Sharma, Jasbir, Samar Vijay Singh,
Sandeep Singh Somaria, Chandan Deep Singh, Akash Gupta,
Akhil Gupta, Ms. Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 3

Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. This criminal appeal arises out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No. 10653 of 2024, which is at the instance of Satbir Singh.1 Under
challenge therein is the judgment and order dated 7th March, 20242
passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh. Vide the impugned order, while allowing a revisional
application3 filed by Rajesh Kumar, Sagar @ Bittoo, Niraj and Ankit
(respondents in the said special leave petition), the High Court set
aside an order dated 13th September, 2021 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Karnal.4 The Sessions Judge, by the order impugned
in the revisional application, had allowed an application under Section
319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19735 filed by the appellant,
seeking to summon Rajesh Kumar, Sagar @ Bittoo, Niraj and Ankit as
additional accused for facing trial along with the principal accused,6
for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324,
307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18607 read with Section 34
thereof as well as Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. Notice on the said special leave petition was issued on 13th August,
2024, limited to the respondents 1 and 3 (Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj,
respectively). For the reasons recorded in such order, the special
leave petition against the respondents 2 and 4 (Sagar @ Bittoo and
Ankit, respectively) stood dismissed.
3. The appellant has since obtained special leave to appeal. He
questions the legality and correctness of the impugned order.
4. Service of notice on Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj having been effected,
they entered appearance and are represented by Mr Gagan Gupta,

1 the appellant
2 impugned order
3 CRR-1357-2021 (O&M)
4 Sessions Judge
5 Cr. PC
6 Mukesh
7 IPC
4 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

senior learned counsel. The appellant is represented by Mr. Neeraj
Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel. We have heard both of them
and perused the materials on record.
5. We have also heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent
no. 5- State of Haryana and perused the counter affidavit filed on
its behalf.
6. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that on 09.02.2020 an information
was received in P.S. Sadar, Karnal that accused Mukesh and the
appellant, residents of village Rasulpur Khurd, District Karnal, were
admitted in Civil Hospital, Karnal and Ram Chander Memorial Hospital,
Karnal, respectively, due to injuries received in an assault. The police
officials of P.S. Sadar, Karnal made abortive attempts to record the
statements of the injured on 09.02.2020 and 10.02.2020, since the
injured were not in a position to give statements. On 12.02.2020,
Mukesh stood discharged, whereas the appellant continued to be
unfit. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Mukesh.
Based on Mukesh’s statement, a First Information Report came
to be registered. During the course of investigation, X-Ray report
relating to injuries of Mukesh was obtained, in which a fracture was
reported. Medical opinion was also obtained, which did not rule out
the possibility of such injuries being self-suffered. The Investigating
Officer reached a conclusion that the allegations of Mukesh against
the appellant were not substantiated and, ultimately, submitted a
closure report.
7. The appellant having regained consciousness on 14.02.2020 and
certified by the attending doctor to be fit, his statement was recorded.
The appellant disclosed that he was serving in the Indian Army and
had come to his village on leave. On 09.02.2020 at about 2.30 p.m.,
while playing volleyball, an altercation had taken place with Mukesh
who was playing for the opposite team. Mukesh started slapping the
appellant. Team members pacified and separated them. However,
Mukesh left threatening that the appellant would be taught a lesson.
After 15 minutes, Mukesh came armed with a knife, accompanied
by Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit armed with lathi, danda, etc.
Neeraj caught hold of the appellant and Mukesh gave a knife blow
in the waist of the appellant followed by another knife blow near his
heart, which penetrated up to the lungs. Sagar and Ankit had beaten
the appellant with lathi and danda. The appellant further alleged
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 5

Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others

that he was threatened by Rajesh who exhorted that although the
appellant had been taught a lesson, he would be killed if he came
back to the village again. Further, in his statement, the appellant
alleged that due to bleeding, he became unconscious and came to
know that he was brought to the hospital by Amarjeet and Jai Singh.
As per MLR of the appellant, he had two injuries caused with sharp
weapons. The Investigating Officer obtained the discharge summary
of the appellant on 20.02.2020 as well as medical opinion, vide which
injury no.1 pertaining to chest was reported as dangerous to life. As
such, a cross-case under Section 323, 324, 307, 506/34 IPC was
registered against Mukesh and Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and
Ankit. On 28.02.2020, the knife used in the crime by Mukesh was
recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement.
8. Further, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
did not find the involvement of Rajesh and Ankit and the same was
verified by the Station House Officer, P.S. Sadar, Karnal.8 Subsequent
separate enquiries conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karnal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, HQ, Karnal, and Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Karnal-II led to filing of reports where,
too, involvement of Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo and Ankit was
found lacking.
9. Mukesh was arrested in the present case on 28.02.2020 and after
completion of investigation, the SHO submitted report under section
173(2), Cr. PC under Sections 307, 323, 324, 506/34 IPC against
Mukesh before the Illaqa Magistrate. Thereafter, the case was
committed to the court of the Sessions Judge for trial.
10. Charges under Section 324, 307 and 506, IPC and Section 25 of the
Arms Act were framed against Mukesh vide order dated 04.03.2021,
whereafter trial commenced. It is proposed by the prosecution to
examine 14 (fourteen) witnesses in support of its case, of whom the
appellant as PW-1 was examined on 27.04.2021. He reiterated the
allegations against Mukesh as also against Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar
@ Bittoo, and Ankit in his examination-in-chief. He also submitted
an application under Section 319, Cr. PC for summoning Rajesh,
Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit to face trial.

8 SHO
6 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

11. It is this application that succeeded before the Sessions Judge,
whereupon Rajesh, Sagar @ Bittoo, Neeraj and Ankit approached the
High Court. The impugned order dated 13.09.2021 of the Sessions
Judge was thereafter set aside on contest.
12. The High Court proceeded to record as follows:
“12. From a perusal of the aforementioned both injuries,
it is apparent that Satbir had suffered only two injuries in
the present case and both injuries were caused with a
knife by Mukesh Kumar. The complainant in his testimony
(Annexure PW-4) stated that all the accused were carrying
dandas and handles of spade in their hands. Neeraj had
caught hold of him, whereas, Sagar @ Bittoo, petitioner
No. 2 and Ankit, petitioner No. 4 gave blows with handles
of spade on his back and on his legs. However, the injuries
caused by the petitioners No. 2 and 4 are clearly missing
in the medical reports. In fact, as per PW-1, Satbir Singh,
all the petitioners had come prepared and were duly
armed to cause injuries to him, but the injuries, which
were allegedly caused by them were not corroborated by
medical evidence.
13. Apart from that, it is apparent from the record that
repeated applications were moved by both the sides to the
local police and the matter was investigated by 03 different
DSPs of Karnal police and the facts were finally verified
by SP, Karnal at his own level. However, during all the
investigations, it was found that all the petitioners had not
participated in the present case and their presence at the
place of occurrence could not be established. No doubt,
the Court is obliged to look into the evidence only, at this
stage, however, the conclusions recorded by the police
and the supporting material collected during the course
of investigation also cannot be overlooked by the Court,
while deciding the application under Section 319 Cr. P.C,
even though the evidence led by the prosecution is the
main basis for disposal of the application. Still further, from
the evidence led by the prosecution, it appears that the
fight in the present case had taken place at the spur of
the moment over a minor issue of counting the points in
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 7

Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others

a Volley Ball game. Even otherwise, admittedly, there was
no enmity between the parties and the petitioners had no
reason to participate in the present occurrence. Still further,
it is also apparent that Mukesh Kumar and Satbir Singh
were members of opposite teams, while playing the Volley
Ball and the occurrence had taken place at the spur of
the moment and injuries were caused by both the sides.
Apart from that, in the present case, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that there was not sufficient material on
record, which could serve as a ground for summoning the
petitioners to face trial along with Mukesh Kumar, who had
already been arrayed as an accused in the present case.”
13. The law on the point of summoning additional accused in exercise
of power conferred by Section 319, Cr. PC is well settled. One may
profitably refer to and rely on the Constitution Bench decision of
this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab,9 where law has
been authoritatively declared. We consider it proper to quote the
conclusions reached by this Court qua the questions arising for
decision, hereunder:
“117. We accordingly sum up our conclusions as follows:

Questions (i) and (iii)
— What is the stage at which power under Section
319 CrPC can be exercised?
AND
— Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1)
CrPC has been used in a comprehensive sense and
includes the evidence collected during investigation
or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence
recorded during trial?

Answer
117.1. In Dharam Pal case [(2014) 3 SCC 306], the
Constitution Bench has already held that after committal,
cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person

9 (2014) 3 SCC 92
8 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

not named as an accused but against whom materials are
available from the papers filed by the police after completion
of the investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under
Section 193 CrPC and the Sessions Judge need not wait
till “evidence” under Section 319 CrPC becomes available
for summoning an additional accused.
117.2. Section 319 CrPC, significantly, uses two expressions
that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) inquiry (2) trial. As a
trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can
only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under
Sections 200, 201, 202 CrPC, and under Section 398 CrPC
are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319
CrPC. Materials coming before the court in course of such
inquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence
recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the
exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, and also to
add an accused whose name has been shown in Column
2 of the charge-sheet.
117.3. In view of the above position the word “evidence”
in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood and
not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial.

Question (ii)—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?

Answer
117.4. Considering the fact that under Section 319 CrPC
a person against whom material is disclosed is only
summoned to face the trial and in such an event under
Section 319(4) CrPC the proceeding against such person
is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance,
the court need not wait for the evidence against the
accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-
examination.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 9

Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others

Question (iv)—What is the nature of the satisfaction
required to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC
to arraign an accused? Whether the power under
Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised only if the
court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in
all likelihood be convicted?

Answer
117.5. Though under Section 319(4)(b) CrPC the accused
subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been
an accused when the court initially took cognizance of the
offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required
for summoning a person under Section 319 CrPC would
be the same as for framing a charge.10 The difference
in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original
accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the
fact that the trial may have already commenced against
the original accused and it is in the course of such trial
that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned
accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in
delay of the trial therefore the degree of satisfaction for
summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has
to be different.

Question (v)—Does the power under Section 319 CrPC
extend to persons not named in the FIR or named
in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or who have been
discharged?

Answer
117.6. A person not named in the FIR or a person though
named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a
person who has been discharged can be summoned under

10 In paragraph 106, the Court held “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 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 CrPC.”
10 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Section 319 CrPC provided from the evidence it appears
that such person can be tried along with the accused
already facing trial. However, insofar as an accused
who has been discharged is concerned the requirement
of Sections 300 and 398 CrPC has to be complied with
before he can be summoned afresh.”
14. Quite recently, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jitendra Nath
Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,11 upon considering
Hardeep Singh (supra), had the occasion to observe as follows:
“10. Section 319 CrPC, which envisages a discretionary
power, empowers the court holding a trial to proceed against
any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it
appears from the evidence that such person has committed
a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the
accused who is facing trial. Such power can be exercised
by the court qua a person who is not named in the FIR,
or named in the FIR but not shown as an accused in the
charge-sheet. Therefore, what is essential for exercise of
the power under Section 319 CrPC is that the evidence
on record must show the involvement of a person in the
commission of a crime and that the said person, who
has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial
together with the accused already arraigned. However,
the court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power
conferred by Section 319 CrPC, must not act mechanically
merely on the ground that some evidence has come on
record implicating the person sought to be summoned;
its satisfaction preceding the order thereunder must be
more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge
being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the
evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.”
15. It is in the light of such settled law that we need to examine the
impugned order of the High Court. However, we must exercise
caution lest any observation has the effect of influencing the trial.
16. Neeraj happens to be the sibling of Mukesh. The initial statement of
the appellant referred to the fact that Neeraj had held him facilitating

11 (2023) 7 SCC 344
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 11

Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others

stabbing by Mukesh, who gave a knife blow in the waist followed by
another blow near his heart which penetrated up to his lungs. Insofar
as Rajesh is concerned, it was alleged that he had threatened the
appellant by saying “Chaaku maar ke tassali kar di, agar dobaara
zinda gaon me ayega to mai goli se uda dunga”. Although, the
Sessions Judge formed the requisite satisfaction bearing in mind
the decision in Hardeep Singh (supra) and held that the tests laid
down therein were squarely met, reading the impugned order in its
entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court failed
to consider the matter from the proper perspective and arrived at
an entirely wrong conclusion.
17. Mr. Gupta has assiduously attempted to impress upon us that
involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj were not found in the several
reports of the Deputy Superintendents of Police, attached to Karnal
district, and such reports should be given credence. We are,
however, of the opinion that no conclusive finding can be given that
Rajesh and Neeraj were not involved merely on the basis of such
reports. Having regard to the version of the appellant in course of
examination-in-chief, the Sessions Judge formed a satisfaction higher
than a prima facie satisfaction of the alleged involvement of Rajesh
and Neeraj and that their complicity in the crime has to be examined
and tested on evidence being led at the trial. To ascertain whether
the Sessions Judge in allowing the application under Section 319,
Cr. PC had acted mechanically or in a manner not authorised by
law or in derogation of the law declared in Hardeep Singh (supra),
the High Court was well within its competence to adopt an ‘eyes on’
approach, considering the nature of power conferred on the High
Court by the Cr. PC as the revisional court, but regard being had
to the facts and circumstances, a ‘hands off’ approach would have
been advisable and the correct approach.
18. We have no hesitation to hold that the conclusion of the Sessions
Judge was a plausible conclusion and not an absurd one so as to
warrant interference by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the High Court
stands set aside and that of the Sessions Judge is restored. The
appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
20. We clarify, no observation made hereinbefore shall be construed
as an expression of opinion as regards the involvement of Rajesh
12 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and Neeraj in the crime and whatever we have said is solely for the
purpose of disposal of this appeal.
21. The Sessions Judge is encouraged to take the trial to its logical
conclusion, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
22. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain