/2022 INSC 0946/
                                                        
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).            OF 2022
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3746 of 2022)
NAVEEN             ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS        ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
    
1. Leave granted. 
2. The instant appeal has been filed assailing correctness of
order   dated   6 th
  January,   2022   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, setting aside order dated
10 th
  February, 2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
1

Bhiwani,   Haryana,   whereby   the   learned   trial   Judge   rejected
the   application   filed   by   the   complainant   under   Section   319
CrPC   to   summon   the   appellant   (accused)   to   face   trial   in
Sessions   Case   No.59   of   2018   with   reference   to   FIR   No.156
dated   12 th
  March,   2018   registered   under   Sections   307,   364,
366,   376   read   with   Section   34   IPC   at   Police   Station   City
Bhiwani, Haryana.  
3. Brief facts of the case culled out from the record are that
FIR No.156 dated 12 th
  March, 2018 was registered for  offence
under Sections 307, 364, 366, 376 read with Section 34 IPC at
Police   Station   City   Bhiwani   on   the   basis   of   the   written
complaint filed by Kamlesh w/o Balwan, caste Jat, resident of
New Bharat Nagar, Bhiwani, Haryana alleging therein that her
daughter   aged   20   years   was   taking   coaching   of   SSC   from
Evermount Coaching Centre, Old Bus Stand, Bhiwani and she
disclosed   that   on   10 th
  March,   2018   at   about   9.00   a.m.,   she
went   to   the   coaching   centre,   but   did   not   return   home   up   to
1.00   p.m.     Thereafter,   she   made   enquiries   from   her   friends
and   acquaintances   but   could   not   find   her   whereabouts.
2

Later,   she   came   to   know   that   the   victim   girl   was   admitted   in
Sunflag Hospital, Rohtak.   When they reached the hospital at
9.00 p.m., they were told that the victim girl was in ICU Ward
and two boys, Arjun and Naveen, sons of Balwan Jat, resident
of   Beri,   District   Jhajjar,   had   brought   the   victim   girl   to   the
hospital in unconscious state.  
4. She further disclosed that her daughter has been enticed
to   Rohtak   by   Arjun,   in   a   pre­planned   manner,   in   collusion
with   his   other   friends   where   she   was   raped   and   an   attempt
was made to eliminate her by hanging.     When Arjun and his
accomplices felt that the victim girl had died, they shifted her
to   the   hospital   in   order   to   save   their   skin.     Accordingly,   she
prayed that legal action may be taken against the culprits.
5. After registration of the FIR, the investigation swung into
motion  and on  receipt  of  the Ruqa  regarding  the  death of  the
victim   girl   on   13 th
  March,   2018,   Section   302   IPC   was   added
and   consequent   upon   verification,   allegations   against   Arjun
were found to be true, whereas remaining culprits, i.e. Naveen
(brother   of   the   appellant)   and   Mehar   Singh(son   of   Shardha
3

Nand)   were   found   innocent   and,   therefore,   the   above­named
persons were kept in column no.2 and subsequently, accused
Arjun   was   arrested   and   after   completion   of   investigation,   the
report under  Section 173 Cr.PC was submitted before the Ld.
Ilaqa Magistrate on 5 th
  June, 2018 against the accused Arjun.
After   charge­sheet   came   to   be   filed,   charges   were   framed
against accused Arjun on 6 th
 August, 2018.   
6. An   application   was   filed   by   the   complainant   through
learned   Public   Prosecutor   under   Section   319   CrPC   on   29 th
October,   2018   for   summoning   of   Naveen   s/o   Balwan   and
Mehar   Singh   s/o   Shardha   Nand,   as   additional   accused   along
with accused Arjun, on the premise that she had named both
these   persons(Naveen   and   Mehar   Singh)   as   accused   in   her
initial version but the police did not challan them in collusion
with   them   and   as   she   now   has   deposed   in   the   Court   naming
these persons as accused, hence, these two persons shall also
be summoned to face trial along with the main accused Arjun.
In support thereof, it was urged that the complainant Kamlesh
as   PW.10   specifically   deposed   against   the   proposed   accused
4

Naveen   and   Mehar   Singh   as   accomplices   of   accused   Arjun
because   these   two   persons   were   also   present   in   the   hospital
with   the   deceased   and   their   presence   is   established   from   the
CCTV   footage   of   Sunflag   Hospital,   Rohtak   and   they   should
also be summoned to face trial with accused Arjun.  
7. In   counter,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted
that   the   complainant   PW.10   has   made   deliberate
improvements   in   her   statement   and   is   trying   to   involve   the
innocent   persons.     It   was   also   submitted   that   from   the
statement   of   PW.6   Mahipal,   the   Hotel   Manager   and   PW.8
Deepchand,   Waiter,   it   is   clear   that   the   deceased   used   to
accompany the accused Arjun voluntarily to their hotel.   Even
from   the   deposition   of   PW.5   Deepak   Kumar,   Nodal   Officer,
Idea   Cellular   Company   Limited,   Panchkula,   it   could   easily   be
established   that   on   the   date   of   occurrence,   the   CCTV   footage
of the hotel where the alleged fateful incident occurred, proves
that   the   accused   Arjun   and   deceased/   prosecutrix   were   not
accompanied  by  any   other   person  at the time of  their  visiting
the   hotel   and   as   per   case   of   the   prosecution,   the   alleged
5

occurrence   had   taken   place   in   the   hotel   and   not   in   the
hospital   where   the   accused   had   taken   the
deceased/prosecutrix   and   if   the   proposed   accused   persons
had   visited   the   hospital,   in   no   manner,   they   become
accomplices   with   the   respondent/accused   who   was   facing
trial.   
8. Taking   into   consideration   the   overall   material   available
during the course of trial, the learned trial Judge was satisfied
that   it   was   not   a   case   to   invoke   Section   319   CrPC   and
returned   a   finding   that   the   evidence   of   summoning   an
additional accused should be of such nature from which it can
be seen that if the evidence recorded during the course of trial
remain   unrebutted,   there   are   chances   of   conviction   of   the
proposed   accused   persons   and   mere   prime   facie   evidence   is
not   sufficient   to   summon   the   additional   accused   and
accordingly   dismissed   application   by   order   dated   10 th
February, 2020.
9. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   with
their assistance perused the material on record.
6

10. It   is   worthy   to   note   that   trial   of   accused   Arjun,   case
bearing   No.SC/59/2018,   titled   as   “State   Versus   Arjun”   was
concluded   and   he   was   held   guilty   and   convicted   for   offence
under Section 302 IPC with imprisonment for life by judgment
dated 28 th
 July, 2022.  
11. The scope and ambit of Section 319 CrPC 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   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
1  (2014) 3 SCC 92
7

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.”
12. The   Constitution   Bench   has   given   a   caution   that   power
under   Section   319   CrPC   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.  
13. While   applying   the   afore­stated   principle,   we   may
examine the facts of the instant case.   It will manifest that the
present   incident   is   based   on   circumstantial   evidence.     As   per
the   prosecution   case,   the   alleged   occurrence   has   taken   place
in the hotel and not in the hospital.  In hospital, the appellant
had   taken   the   deceased/prosecutrix   and   if   the   appellant   as
8

proposed, visited the hospital,  that  in  no manner  could make
him an accomplice with the accused Arjun and apart from the
evidence   of   the   complainant   PW.10,   the   statement   of   other
prosecution   witnesses,   PW.6  Mahipal,   the  Hotel   Manager   and
PW.8   Deepchand,   Waiter,   no   one   has   accompanied   the
deceased other than accused Arjun.   The CCTV footage of the
hotel   where   the   alleged   occurrence   has   taken   place   which
came   on   record   during   the   course   of   trial   indicates   that   no
other person had visited the hotel except Arjun who was made
accused and faced trial.  
14. So   far   as   Mehar   Singh   is   concerned,   it   may   be   noticed
that   it   was   conceded   before   the   High   Court   that   the   name   of
Mehar Singh does not figure anywhere during the investigation
and there is no evidence against him to deny him from facing
prosecution.     That   apart,   it   was   recorded   by   the   High   Court
that the hotel staff and of the hospital staff showed presence of
two   boys   and   that   corroborates   the   initial   stand   of   the
complainant   that   two   boys   were   there   at   the   time   of
occurrence   but   that   appears   to   be   factually   incorrect.       The
9

presence of two boys was in the hospital and not in the hotel
as per the case of the prosecution and this what was deposed
by the prosecution witnesses whose statements were recorded
during   the   course   of   trial   as   PW.6   and   PW.8   and   also   the
record   of   the   CCTV   footage   of   the   hotel   as   a   part   of   evidence
relied upon by the prosecution.   
15. After   we   have   examined   the   material   on   record,   in   our
considered   view,   the   evidence   recorded   during   the   course   of
prosecution,   if   remains   unrebutted,   will   not   be   sufficient   to
lead   the   conviction   so   far   as   the   present   appellant   is
concerned and accordingly the order passed by the High Court
dated 6 th
 January, 2022 is not sustainable in law and deserves
to be set aside.  
16. Before parting with, we make it clear that what has been
observed   by   this   Court   is   only   for   the   purpose   of   disposal   of
the   present   appeal   in   reference   to   the   power   invoked   under
Section   319   CrPC   by   the   High   Court   to   summon   the   present
appellant   for   facing   trial   with   reference   to   FIR   No.156   dated
10

12 th
  March,   2018   registered   under   Sections   302,   307,   364,
366,   376   read   with   Section   34   IPC   at   Police   Station   City
Bhiwani   where   by   judgment   dated   28 th
  July,   2022   accused
Arjun   has   been   held   guilty   and   convicted   for   offence   under
Section   302   IPC   and   sentenced   to   life   imprisonment   against
which   the   appeal   has   been   filed   in   the   High   Court   at   the
instance   of   accused   Arjun   that   may   be   decided   uninfluenced
by   the   observations   made   on   its   own   merits   in   accordance
with law.
 17. Consequently,   the   appeal   stands   allowed   and   the   order
impugned   dated   6 th
  January,   2022   passed   by   the   High   Court
is set aside. 
18. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
….………………………J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………………………….J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 01, 2022.
11