/2023 INSC 0106/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.549 OF 2023
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1658 of 2020]
Juhru & Ors. … Appellant(s)
                                             VERSUS
Karim & Anr. … Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
Leave Granted.
2. The   instant   Criminal   Appeal   originates   from   a   judgment   dated
27.01.2020   whereby   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at
Chandigarh (in short ‘High Court’), while setting aside the order
dated 12.07.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh,
has ordered the summoning of the Appellants under Section 319
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) as
additional accused. 
A. F   ACTS
3. Briefly   stated   the   facts   are   that   FIR   No.   270   dated   09.07.2017
was   registered   at   Police   Station   Tauru,   District   Nuh   under

Sections 304B, 498A, 406, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) on the statement of Karim ­ Respondent
No.   1   to   the   effect   that   the   marriage   of   his   deceased   sister
(Rukseena)   was   solemnised   on   04.12.2016   with   one   Aamir.     An
Alto   car,   Rs.3   lakhs   in   cash,   3   kg   of   silver,   30   grams   of   gold,
furniture   and   other   household   items   were   allegedly   given   to
Aamir and his family members as dowry at the time of marriage.
The   family   of   Aamir   comprised   of   Akhlima   (mother),   Juhru
(father)   –   Appellant   No.1,   Sonam   (sister)   –   Appellant   No.2   and
Rijwan   (brother­in­law)   –   Appellant   No.3.     The   complainant
further alleged that the family of Aamir was dissatisfied with the
dowry   and   subjected   the   deceased   to   continuous   torture   and
harassment.   Respondent No.1 and his family tried to settle the
matter   with   Aamir   and   his   family   but   all   their   efforts   proved
futile.     Respondent   No.   1   was   telephonically   informed   on
09.07.2017 that the deceased had hung herself to death.
4. The investigating agency did not find any incriminating material
against the Appellants in the course of investigation and Challan
was filed only against the husband and the mother­in­law of the
deceased, who are now facing trial.
5. During the trial, Respondent No. 1 stepped into the witness box
as   PW­1   on   01.03.2018   and   reiterated   the   allegations   levelled
Page  |  2

against   all   the   accused   persons,   including   the   Appellants.   Soon
thereafter,   Respondent   No.   1   filed   an   application   under   section
319  Cr.P.C   before   the  Trial   Court  to  summon   the  Appellants  as
additional accused. 
6. The Trial Court dismissed the said application observing that the
extraordinary power vested under section 319 Cr.P.C ought to be
exercised   only   if   the   evidence   adduced   on   record   strongly
indicates   the   possible   involvement   of   the   person(s)   aimed   to   be
prosecuted. The Trial Court further opined that it did not appear
from   the   deposition   of   Respondent   No.   1   or   from   other   material
on   record   that   the   persons   sought   to   be   summoned   had
committed   any   offence   for   which   they   could   be   tried   together
with accused Aamir and Akhlima. 
7. The   aggrieved   Respondent   No.   1,   approached   the   High   Court
under   Section   482,   Cr.P.C.   and   vide   impugned   order   dated
27.01.2020   his   petition   was   allowed   and   the   appellants   were
summoned to face trial. The High Court observed that the FIR as
well   as   the   testimony   of   Respondent   No.   1   during   the   trial
revealed   that   the   insinuations   against   the   Appellants   were
exactly   the   same   as   those   attributed   to   the   accused   already
facing   trial.   Hence,   in   the   absence   of   any   distinguishable
features,   the   Appellants   were   also   liable   to   be   tried   along   with
Page  |  3

Aamir   and   Akhlima.   The   High   Court   further   viewed   that   there
existed   sufficient   grounds   for   summoning   the   Appellants   as
additional accused. 
8. Discontented   with   their   summoning   by   the   High   Court,   the
Appellants are before us. 
B. C ONTENTIONS
9.       Mr.   S.K.   Verma,   learned   counsel   for   the   Appellants,   vehemently
contended   that   the   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   of
law   in   not   appreciating   that   the   powers   under   Section   319
Cr.P.C.   are   to   be  exercised   sparingly   only   if   the   evidence   vividly
points out the possible involvement of the person(s) proposed to
be   prosecuted.   There   is   not   an   iota   of   evidence   against   the
appellants   to   glean   a   conclusion   of   their   involvement.   Further,
the   fact   that   the   Appellants   were   found   innocent   during   the
course   of   two­fold   investigation   has   not   been   adequately
considered   by   the   High   Court.   There   is   no   evidence   to   suggest
even   remotely   that   the   Appellants   were   cruel   to   the   deceased
shortly   before   her   death.   The   allegations   are   general   and   vague
in nature without attributing any specific role to the Appellants.
10. On   the   other   hand,   Mr.   Deepkaran   Dalal,   learned   Counsel   for
the  Ist  Respondent,   strongly  defended   the  approach  of  the   High
Court and submitted that, given the allegations made in the FIR
Page  |  4

and   the   deposition   of   Respondent   No.1,   the   High   Court   was
justified   in   summoning   the   Appellants,   who   were   actively
involved   in   harassing   the   deceased   for   not   bringing   enough
dowry   and   which   eventually   led   to   the   unfortunate   death   of
Rukseena just within 7 months of her marriage.
C. A    NALYSIS     
11.   There is no gainsaid that the alleged offence is grave and heinous
in   nature.   The   long   arms   of   law   must   find   out   whether   any
person  is guilty  of  abetting  or taking away  the  precious life  of  a
young   girl   who   soon   after   her   marriage   met   with   such   a   tragic
end.   However,   the   only   issue   that   falls   for   our   consideration   is
whether   there   is   sufficient   evidence   against   the   Appellants   to
summon them as additional accused?
12. Section 319 Cr.P.C. contemplates that: 
“….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   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. … …”
13.     Illuminating   the   scope   of   Section   319   Cr.PC,   the   Constitution
Bench of this Court in  Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab 1
  laid
down that :
1
 (2014) 3 SCC 92
Page  |  5

“57.   Thus,   the   application   of   the   provisions   of
Section   319   CrPC,   at   the   stage   of   inquiry   is   to   be
understood   in   its   correct   perspective.   The   power
under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised only on the
basis   of   the   evidence   adduced   before   the   court
during   a   trial.   So   far   as   its   application   during   the
course of inquiry is concerned, it remains limited as
referred   to   herein   above,   adding   a   person   as   an
accused, whose name has been mentioned in Column
2 of the charge­sheet or any other person who might
be an accomplice.”
x­x­x­x­x­
“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   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
Page  |  6

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.”
14. This Court has very recently, in  Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The
State   of  Punjab 2
,   succinctly   explained the  powers bestowed  on
the Court under section 319 Cr.P.C. and ruled that: 
“15.   At   the   outset,   having   noted   the   provision,   it   is   amply
clear that the power bestowed on the Court is to the effect
that in the course of an inquiry into, or trial of an offence,
based   on   the   evidence   tendered   before   the   Court,   if   it
appears   to   the   Court   that   such   evidence   points   to   any
person   other   than   the   accused   who   are   being   tried   before
the Court to have committed any offence and such accused
has  been excluded in the charge sheet or  in  the process  of
trial   till   such   time   could   still   be   summoned   and   tried
together with the accused for the offence which appears to
have   been   committed   by   such   persons   summoned   as
additional accused.”
15. In   Hardeep Singh (Supra) ,   it has been eloquently held that the
word   “evidence”   in   Section   319   Cr.P.C.   has   to   be   broadly
understood   and   thus   materials   which   have   come   before   the
Court in course of enquiry can be used for : ­ 
(i) corroboration   of   evidence   recorded   by   Court   after  
commencement of trial;
(ii) for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; and
2
 (2023) 1 SCC 289
Page  |  7

(iii) also   to   add   an   accused   whose   name   is   shown   in   column
no.2  of the chargesheet.
It was  further  explained  that statement made  in examination­in
chief   also   constitutes   “evidence”   and   the   Court   while   exercising
power   under   Section   319   Cr.P.C.   post   commencement   of   trial,
need   not   wait   for   evidence   against   person   proposed   to   be
summoned, to be tested by cross­examination.
16. In   Sukhpal   Singh   Khaira   (Supra),   the   Constitution   Bench
refreshed   the   guidelines   that   the   competent   court   must   follow
while   exercising   power   under   Section   319   Cr.P.C.     It   was   ruled
that :­
(i) if   the   competent   court   finds   evidence   or   if   application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is filed, regarding involvement of
any   other   person   in   committing   the   offence   based   on
evidence “recorded at any stage in the trial” before passing
of   the   order   on   acquittal   or   sentence,   it   shall   pause   the
trial at that stage and the Court shall proceed to decide the
fate of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.;
(ii) if the Court decides to summon an accused under Section
319 Cr.P.C., such summoning order shall be passed before
proceeding   further   with   the   trial   in   the   main   case   and
depending upon the stage at which the order is passed, the
Page  |  8

Trial   Court   shall   apply   its   mind   to   the   fact   as   to   whether
such   summoned   accused   is   to   be   tried   along   with   other
accused or separately; and
(iii) if   the   power   under   Section   319   Cr.P.C.   is   not   invoked   or
exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is
a   split­up   case,   such   power   can   be   invoked   or   exercised
only   if   there   is   evidence   to   that   effect,   pointing   to   the
involvement   of   the   additional   accused   to   be   summoned   in
the spilt­up (bifurcated trial).
17. It   is,   thus,   manifested   from   a   conjoint   reading   of   the   cited
decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is
not   to   be   exercised   routinely   and   the   existence   of   more   than   a
prima   facie   case   is   sine   quo   non   to   summon   an   additional
accused.   We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the
frequent   misuse   of   power   to   summon   additional   accused   under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity with the binding judicial
dictums   referred  to   above,  the  procedural   safeguard   can   be  that
ordinarily   the   summoning   of   a   person   at   the   very   threshold   of
the   trial   may   be   discouraged   and   the   trial   court   must   evaluate
the   evidence   against   the   persons   sought   to   be   summoned   and
then   adjudge   whether   such   material   is,   more   or   less,   carry   the
same   weightage   and   value   as   has   been   testified   against   those
Page  |  9

who   are   already   facing   trial.   In   the   absence   of   any   credible
evidence,   the   power   under   Section   319   Cr.P.C.   ought   not   to   be
invoked. 
18. Adverting   to   the   case   in   hand,   the   allegations   against   the
Appellants   are   that   they   too   played   an   active   role   in   the
commission of the alleged offence. 
19. The   record   reveals   that   after   the   application   under   section   319
Cr.P.C   was   dismissed   by   the   Trial   Court,   Respondent   No.1   was
called   on   06.12.2018   for   further   examination­in­chief   as   PW­1.
His deposition distinctively unravels that at the time of marriage,
Appellant   No.1   –   Juhru   (father­in­law)   had   asked   Respondent
No.1 to spend a sum of Rs. 20 lacs on the marriage of Aamir and
the deceased, to which Respondent No.1 had agreed.   Appellant
No.1 and his wife Akhlima (mother­in­law) were living under the
same   roof   as   his   son   Aamir   (husband)   and   he   would   have   been
privy   to   all   the   alleged   occurrences   of   torture,   harassment   or
demand for more dowry. Viewed from this angle, it appears that
the   Ist   appellant   might   have   to   sink   or   swim   with   his   son   and
wife.   The   High   Court   order,   to   the   extent   of   summoning
Appellant   No.   1,   therefore,   satisfies   the   ingredients   of   Section
319 Cr.P.C. and may not warrant any interference by this Court.
Page  |  10

20. As  regard   to   Appellant  Nos.   2  and   3,  i.e.,  Sonam   (sister­in­law),
and Rijwan (brother­in­law) of the deceased, it appears to us that
despite   both   of   them   being   named   in   the   FIR   and   in   the
examination­in­chief   of   Respondent   No.1,   there   is   no   credible
evidence to connect them with the unnatural death of Rukseena.
There  is  no  cogent  material   that  Appellant  No.   2,  even  after   her
marriage   with   Appellant   No.   3,   continued   to   reside   in   her
parents’   house   or   that   they   used   to   inter­meddle   in   the   day   to
day marital life of the deceased and Aamir. In the absence of any
authentic   evidence   to   bring   them   in   close   proximity   of   the
reported   crime,   it   would   be   unjustified   to   call   upon   Appellant
Nos. 2 and 3 to face trial as additional accused in this case.  
D. CONCLUSION :
21. In   light   of   above   discussion,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that
while   summoning   of   Appellant   No.   1   sustains,   but   that   of
Appellant   Nos.   2   and   3   will   be   farfetched   and   they   cannot   be
subjected to trial on the basis of mere strong suspicion. The High
Court   order   under   challenge   is   accordingly   set   aside   qua
Appellant Nos. 2 and 3.
22. Having held that Appellant No.1 has been rightly summoned and
is liable to be tried along with his son and wife, the next question
Page  |  11

that requires consideration is as to the manner in which the trial
will proceed hitherto.
23. The  information   available   on   record  suggests  that  the   trial  is  at
the stage of defence evidence. The guidelines that the Trial Court
must   follow,   while   commencing   the   trial   against   Appellant   No.1
have   been   extensively   iterated   by   the   Constitution   Bench   in
Sukhpal Singh Khaira (Supra),  in the following terms: 
“41   ( III).   What   are   the   guidelines   that   the   competent   court
must   follow   while   exercising   power   under   Section   319
CrPC?
41.1 If the competent court finds evidence or if application
under   Section   319   of   CrPC   is   filed   regarding
involvement   of   any   other   person   in   committing   the
offence based on evidence recorded at any stage in the
trial   before   passing   of   the   order   on   acquittal   or
sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage.
41.2 The   Court   shall   thereupon   first   decide   the   need   or
otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass
orders thereon.
41.3 If   the   decision   of   the   court   is   to   exercise   the   power
under   Section   319   of   CrPC   and   summon   the   accused,
such   summoning   order   shall   be   passed   before
proceeding further with the trial in the main case.
41.4 If   the   summoning   order   of   additional   accused   is
passed, depending on the stage at which it is passed,
the   Court   shall   also   apply   its   mind   to   the   fact   as   to
whether   such   summoned   accused   is   to   be   tried   along
with the other accused or separately.
Page  |  12

41.5 If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be
commenced   only   after   securing   the   presence   of   the
summoned accused.
41.6 If   the   decision   is   that   the   summoned   accused   can   be
tried separately, on such order being made, there will
be   no   impediment   for   the   Court   to   continue   and
conclude the trial against the accused who were being
proceeded with.”
24. The  Trial   Court  shall,  thus,  follow  the  cited   dictum   and  proceed
against Appellant No. 1 in accordance with law.
25. For the reasons aforestated but without expressing any views on
merits,   we   partly   allow   this   appeal   and   modify   the   impugned
order of the High Court dated 27.01.2020 in above terms. 
26. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
………..………………… J.
(SURYA KANT)
…………………………...J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
NEW DELHI
DATED: 21.02.2023
Page  |  13