/2022 INSC 0193/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).    397     OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos.7373 of 2021)
SAGAR                   ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER         ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
Leave granted.
2. The   instant   appeal   has   been   filed   by   the   appellant   assailing
the   correctness   of   the   order   dated   28 th
  July,   2021   passed   by   the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad setting aside order dated 30 th
January,   2018   passed   by   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge,
Muzaffarnagar, whereby the trial Court had rejected the application
filed by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
1

Procedure,   1973   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Code”)   for
summoning   the   appellant   as   accused   and   to   face   trial   in   Case
Crime   No.164   of   2014   under   Section   302   IPC   registered   at   PS
Fugana, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh.
3. The brief facts of the case culled out from the record are that
on   a   written   complaint   made   by   one   Ravinder   s/o   Sadhuram   that
on   10 th
  September,   2014,   both   his   sons   Sachin   and   Nitin   were
called by Jagpal s/o Shital Singh and his nephew Sagar s/o Charan
Singh   (appellant)   from   his   house   for   tying   the   sugarcane   crop   and
his   son   Nitin   was   seen   in   the   company   of   Jagpal   and   Sagar
(appellant)   by   the   complainant   while   he   was   returning   back   and
later  at about 9.00 a.m. when the complainant went to the field of
Jagpal   and   called   Nitin,   Jagpal   asked   Sagar   to   disconnect   the
electric wire and at some distance he saw Nitin lying near the Mend
in   a   naked   position,   and   was   burnt   by   electric   wire   around   the
neck.     On   calling   Jagpal   and   Sagar,   they   ran   away   from   the   spot.
On the said written complaint Case Crime No.164 of 2014 came to
be registered under Section 302 IPC.
2

4. After investigation, chargesheet came to be filed against Jagpal
Singh s/o  Shital  Singh.     At  the  same time, it  was recorded in  the
chargesheet   that   from   the   statements   of   the   complainant   and
witnesses   and   inspection   of   the   place   of   incident,   naming   of   the
accused Sagar  who  was a  juvenile and  minor  at  the  relevant  point
of time, was found to be wrong.  No case was made out against him
and challan was filed against Jagpal under Section 302 IPC.
5. After   the   statements   of   complainant   (PW.1)   and   Sadhu   Ram
(PW.2),   father   of   the   complainant   were   recorded,   the   complainant
during trial filed application under Section 319 of the Code on 17 th
March,   2016,   stating,   inter   alia,   that   during   the   course   of
investigation   when   the   statement   of   complainant   and   his   father
were   recorded   under   Section   161   of   the   Code,   the   investigating
officer   had   arbitrarily   removed   the   name   of   the   present   appellant
from the chargesheet, although he was also involved in committing
the said crime and this fact has been recorded by PW.1 and PW.2 in
their statements on oath while recording their deposition during the
course   of   the   prosecution   and   accordingly   asked   to   summon   the
present appellant also for trial for the crime committed by him.  
3

6. The   learned   trial   Judge   after   taking   into   consideration   the
material   on   record   and   so   also   the   statements   of   PW.1   and   PW.2
recorded   a   finding   that   neither   the   complainant   (PW.1)   nor   his
father   (PW.2)   were   eye­witness   and   it   has   only   been   stated   about
removal   of   the   electric   wire   by   the   appellant   and   this   fact   was
noticed by the investigating officer even when the chargesheet came
to   be   filed   and   the   investigating   officer   has   not   found   the   present
appellant   to   have   participated   in   the   commission   of   crime   and   at
least   at   the   stage   when   Section   319   of   the   Code   is   to   be   invoked,
there   must   be   a   strong   and   cogent   evidence   occurred   against   a
person   from   the   evidence   led   before   the   Court   and   taking   into
consideration   the   material   available   on   record,   was   not   satisfy   to
summon the  present  appellant under  Section  319 of the Code and
consequently   rejected   the   application   by   an   order   dated   30 th
January, 2018.   The finding recorded by the learned trial Judge in
passing   the   order   dated   30 th
  January,   2018   is   reproduced
hereunder:
“In   the   present   session   trial,   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the
Complainant has argued that in the captioned Session Trial, in the
FIR,   name   of   Sagar   S/o   Charan   Singh   was   written   and   in   the
statements   of   the   Complainant,   name   of   Sagar   has   come   and
4

hence he should be summoned for  Trial. In this regard, it is clear
from   the   statement   of   PW­1   that   the   Complainant   is   not   the   eye
witness of the incident and he has got the name of accused Jagpal
and Sagar written in FIR on the basis of Jagapal and Sagar having
gone   with   his   son.   In   the   same   way,   the   PW­2,   in   the   cross­
examination   has   only   stated   about   removal   of   the   electricity   wire
by Sagar. This is important to state that the Investigating Officer of
the case has found the naming of Sagar as incorrect and hence he
did not include his name in the charge­sheet. In addition to that, it
has been accepted in the Cross­examination of Sadhuram that "the
investigation  of  the  case  has been  done  by   many  Inspectors.  First
it   was   done   by   Fugana   Police   thereafter   my   son   Ravinder   got   the
Investigation   transferred   to   crime   branch".   Under   Section   319,
summoning cannot be done on the ground that some evidence has
come   against   the   person.   The   evidence   should   be   of   such   nature
which   would   satisfy   the   court   that   the   said   person   is   involved   in
the crime.
In   the   opinion   of   the   Court,   from   the   evidence   available   on
record,   there   is   no   sufficient   ground   for   summoning   Sagar   as
accused   u/s   319   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure.   Hence   the
application is liable to be dismissed.”
7. The   respondent/complainant,   father   of   the   deceased,   filed
Criminal   Revision   Petition   before   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at
Allahabad.  The learned Single Judge, without even appreciating the
evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, which was recorded during the course
of trial, in a casual and cavalier manner, set aside the well­reasoned
order   passed   by   the   learned   trial   Judge   under   its   order   impugned
dated  28 th
  July,  2021.     It  will  be  apposite  to   quote  the  manner  in
which   the   learned   Single   Judge   has   set   aside   a   cogent   reasoning
recorded by the learned trial Judge under its order dated 28 th
  July,
5

2021.   The relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 28 th
 July, 2021 is reproduced hereunder:
“I have perused arguments of Ld. Counsel for Revisionist, the
case file and order under question.
After going by the arguments of both sides the Ld. Counsels
and   the   perusal   of   the   case   file,   summarily   the   order   dated
30.04.2018   passed   by   Additional   Session   Judge,   Court   No.   1,
Muzaffarnagar seems erroneous.
Therefore,   this   Criminal   Revision   is   hereby   accepted   and
Session Revision No. 508 of 2015, State Versus Jagpal, passed by
Additional   Session   Judge,   Court   No.   1   Muzaffarnagar   vide   order
dated   30.01.2018   is   hereby   quashed   it   is   hereby   directed   that
without being influenced by the merits of any observation made in
this order, after allowing sufficient opportunity to the parties, and
after complete perusal of the case file appropriate order be passed
in the matter within two months.
The  Office   is  hereby   directed   to  ensure  of  sending   a  copy   of
this   order   and   the   record   of   the   case   to   the   Court   concerned
without any delay.”
8. The scope and ambit of Section 319 of the Code has been well­
settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in   Hardeep Singh
v. State of Punjab and others 1
  and paras 105 and 106 which are
relevant for the purpose are reproduced hereunder:
“ 105.   Power   under   Section   319   CrPC   is   a   discretionary   and   an
extra­ordinary   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
1  (2014) 3 SCC 92
6

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 cross­examination, 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.  In  Section
319 CrPC the purpose of providing 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 CrPC to form any opinion as to the
guilt of the accused.”
9. The Constitution Bench has given a caution that power   under
Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power
which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where
the   circumstances   of   the   case   so   warrant   and   the   crucial   test   as
noticed   above   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.     The   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High
Court has even failed to consider the basic principles laid down by
this Court while invoking Section 319 of the Code, which has been
7

considered   by   the   learned   trial   Judge   under   its   order   dated   30 th
January, 2018.
10. Consequently,  in   our   opinion,   the   appeal   deserves  to  succeed
and the same is accordingly allowed.   The order passed by the High
Court dated 28 th
 July, 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. 
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 
……………………………….J.
      (AJAY RASTOGI)
………………………………J.
       (ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
MARCH 10, 2022.
8