The Supreme Court has held that while exercising powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon an additional accused, the trial court cannot turn a blind eye to a witness’s cross-examination if it completely demolishes the statement-in-chief.

It was observed that although Section 319 CrPC power can be invoked solely on a witness’s chief examination, once a witness has undergone cross-examination, the court must consider their testimony in its entirety.

Setting aside the orders of the Trial Court and Allahabad High Court, the court clarified that where the decision to arraign an additional accused rests entirely on a witness’s deposition, the trial court must examine both chief and cross-examination before determining if strong evidence exists to try the additional accused alongside the existing ones.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice NK Singh observed, "No doubt, the trial court is not supposed to weigh the statement of a witness on the anvil of probabilities, or against the weight of other evidences, to consider whether it would be appropriate to try the additional accused along with one already facing trial. However, if the statement of a witness during cross-examination demolishes the edifice of his statement in chief, the trial court cannot overlook the statement in its entirety, when the decision to arraign additional accused rests entirely on his statement; though, after considering the statement in its entirety, it would be within the domain of the Trial Court whether to arraign the additional accused to face trial along with the one already facing trial."

Advocate Lavish appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Ashish Kumar Rai appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts

An appeal was filed impugning the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court whereby the revision petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed. The revision petition was filed against the order of the trial court summoning the Appellant under Section 319 of the CrPC for being tried along with other accused. 

The case arose from an FIR registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging that one Raman Yadav and the Appellant came to the house of the informant and demanded a share from the deceased father. 

When the deceased refused to execute the transfer instrument, the appellant held the hand of the deceased, and Raman Singh stabbed the deceased with a knife and thereafter both fled. 

Contentions of the Parties

The Appellant submitted that the Trial Court mechanically exercised its power under Section 319 CrPC without even applying its mind to the entire deposition of the witnesses. It was submitted that had the Trial Court considered the testimony of the witnesses in its entirety, including what they stated during cross-examination, it may not have found it appropriate to summon the appellant at all.

It was submitted that during cross-examination, the witness had stated that he had not personally witnessed anyone attacking his father and that he did not lodge a First Information Report on the day of the incident; rather, it was lodged upon insistence of the villagers. 

The Respondents submitted that at the stage of exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, the Court was not required to hold a mini trial so as to conclude whether the evidence would ultimately result in conviction.

It was argued that the Court was merely to be satisfied whether, based on the evidence available on the record, the additional accused must be tried along with the one already facing trial.

Observations/Findings of the Court

The Court observed that one of the objects of vesting power in the Trial Court to arraign an additional accused under Section 319 of CrPC is to ensure that a person involved in the crime does not escape the clutches of law on account of lapses on the part of the investigating agency. However, the Court added that this power is to be exercised sparingly based on the evidence led during trial.

"We are conscious of the law that the expression evidence as used in Section 319 CrPC is not confined to the statement of a witness tested by cross-examination. The power under Section 319 CrPC can very well be exercised based on a statement-in-chief of a witness, without awaiting his cross-examination. However, where the witness has been cross-examined, the trial court cannot shut its eye to the entire statement. Because evidence would not merely be the statement in chief of a witness but would include his statement recorded during cross-examination, " it added.

The court concluded that neither the High Court nor the Trial Court considered the deposition of the witnesses in its entirety, and overlooked the statement of the concerned witness made during cross-examination.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. 

Cause Title: Neelam Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. [SLP (Crl.) No. 5531/2026]

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate Lavish, Advocate Raj Kumar Bhartiya, Advocate Sudhir Mendiratta

Respondents: Advocate on Record Krishna Dev Pandey, Advocate Ashish Kumar Rai, Advocate Maruti Nandan, Advocate Ranit Mukherjee, Advocate Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Inzmamul Haq Khan, Advocate Sushil Kumar

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: