Supreme Court allows appeal against Rajesh Kumar and others in criminal case (2025)

Date of the Judgment: April 01, 2025

Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Manmohan J.

Can additional individuals be summoned to face trial alongside the primary accused based on evidence presented during the trial? The Supreme Court addressed this question in an appeal against a decision by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the Sessions Judge’s order to summon Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj as additional accused. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan.

Case Background:

The case originated from an incident on February 9, 2020, where Satbir Singh and Mukesh sustained injuries during an altercation. Initially, Mukesh reported that Satbir Singh assaulted him, leading to a police investigation. However, Satbir Singh later stated that Mukesh, along with Rajesh Kumar, Sagar @ Bittoo, Niraj, and Ankit, assaulted him. Satbir Singh claimed Mukesh inflicted knife wounds while the others used lathi and danda. Rajesh Kumar allegedly threatened him.

During the investigation, the police did not find the involvement of Rajesh and Ankit, which was verified by multiple senior police officers. Mukesh was arrested, and a report was submitted against him under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The trial court framed charges against Mukesh. Subsequently, Satbir Singh, as PW-1, reiterated his allegations against Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit and filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon them to face trial.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings:

The Sessions Judge allowed the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon Rajesh, Sagar @ Bittoo, Neeraj, and Ankit to face trial. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside this order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework:

The judgment refers to Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides the power to the court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence.

Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states:

“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
(1) 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.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-
(b) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re- heard.”

Arguments:

• Appellant’s Argument (Satbir Singh):
  • Satbir Singh alleged that Neeraj held him while Mukesh stabbed him.
  • Rajesh threatened him, stating, “Chaaku maar ke tassali kar di, agar dobaara zinda gaon mein ayega to mai goli se uda dunga” (We have satisfied ourselves by stabbing you; if you come back to the village alive, I will shoot you).
  • Satbir Singh contended that the Sessions Judge correctly applied the principles in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92].
• Respondents’ Argument (Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj):
  • Mr. Gupta, the senior learned counsel representing Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj, argued that multiple reports by Deputy Superintendents of Police attached to Karnal district did not find their involvement.
  • He argued that these reports should be given credence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge, which allowed the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon Rajesh Kumar and others as additional accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities:

• Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92]: The Constitution Bench decision was referred to regarding the law on summoning additional accused under Section 319, Cr. PC.
• Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another [(2023) 7 SCC 344]: A coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court considered Hardeep Singh and observed the essentials for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC.

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Sessions Judge’s order.
• The Court clarified that its observations should not be construed as an expression of opinion regarding the involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj in the crime.
• The Sessions Judge was directed to take the trial to its logical conclusion expeditiously.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Sessions Judge had formed the necessary satisfaction based on the appellant’s initial statement and the principles established in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. The Court found that the High Court had erred in overlooking the appellant’s version and the Sessions Judge’s assessment of the evidence.

Key Takeaways:

• The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Court emphasized that the Sessions Judge’s conclusion was plausible and should not have been interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

Development of Law:

The judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab regarding the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It clarifies that the Sessions Judge’s satisfaction regarding the involvement of additional accused should not be lightly interfered with.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the Sessions Judge’s order to summon Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj as additional accused. The Court held that the High Court had erred in setting aside the Sessions Judge’s order, emphasizing the need to consider the evidence and the Sessions Judge’s satisfaction regarding the involvement of the accused.