The Punjab & Haryana High Court has affirmed that a court may summon an individual as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based solely on evidence adduced during trial, even if the investigating agency had previously found him innocent. This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s duty to ensure no guilty party escapes trial due to investigative oversight.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sukhpreet Singh, was named in FIR No. 60 dated 22.05.2019, registered at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 148, and 149 IPC. The complainant, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, alleged that the petitioner and six others attacked him on 09.05.2019 for refusing to pay Rs. 7,000 for milk supplied. The complainant claimed the petitioner struck him with a datar, causing injury to his left hand, while co-accused Gurpreet Singh inflicted head injuries. The petitioner was not arrested or charge-sheeted during investigation.
Key Facts
- The complainant was engaged in dairy farming and supplied milk to villagers, including the petitioner.
- Payment for milk was disputed; the petitioner allegedly withheld payment until milk supply resumed.
- On 09.05.2019, the complainant was intercepted near the petitioner’s house by the petitioner and six others.
- The petitioner was named in Column No. 2 of the challan, but not charge-sheeted.
- During investigation, an inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), Amritsar City, on 12.12.2019.
- The inquiry report concluded the petitioner was not present at the scene; he was allegedly practicing at Akhara Bhagtanwala with Vijay Kumar @ Billa, and his mobile phone was at home.
- Despite this, the complainant, as PW1, testified during trial that the petitioner personally assaulted him.
Procedural History
- 22.05.2019: FIR No. 60 registered at PS Sultanwind.
- 12.12.2019: Inquiry report submitted by Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), concluding petitioner’s innocence.
- 17.02.2026: Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, allowed application under Section 358 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 319 CrPC) to summon petitioner as additional accused.
- 27.03.2026: Petitioner filed revision petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the summoning order.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Argued that the investigation conclusively established his alibi; the trial court ignored the inquiry report; summoning him would amount to abuse of process. Relied on the clean chit from the senior police officer and absence of arrest or charge-sheeting.
For the Respondent/State: Contended that the complainant’s testimony during trial directly implicated the petitioner; Section 319 CrPC permits summoning based on trial evidence, irrespective of investigative findings.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 17.02.2026 summoning him as an additional accused, on grounds of lack of evidence, investigative clearance, and violation of natural justice.
The Legal Issue
Can a court summon a person as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC based solely on the prosecution’s evidence during trial, even when the investigating agency has previously found the person innocent and not charge-sheeted?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the inquiry report dated 12.12.2019, prepared by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, conclusively established his alibi. He was not arrested, not charge-sheeted, and his name was only mentioned in Column No. 2 of the challan as a non-prosecuted individual. The trial court’s order, he submitted, ignored this material and relied solely on the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony, which was inherently unreliable given the existence of a cross-case against the complainant. He contended that summoning him would violate the principles of fairness and constitute an abuse of process.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Advocate General submitted that Section 319 CrPC is an enabling provision designed to ensure no guilty person escapes trial due to investigative lapses. The complainant’s testimony as PW1, given under oath during trial, directly implicated the petitioner in the assault. The court is not bound by investigative conclusions; its duty is to act on evidence presented before it. The Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana has held that the threshold for invoking Section 319 is higher than prima facie but lower than conviction - and the complainant’s testimony met this standard.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of Section 319 CrPC and its interpretation by the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana (2021) 18 SCC 321. It emphasized that the power under Section 319 is extraordinary, discretionary, and must be exercised sparingly. However, it is not contingent upon the investigating agency’s opinion.
"The word 'evidence' in section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents."
The Court held that the inquiry report, though detailed, was a pre-trial investigative document and could not override evidence recorded in court. The complainant’s testimony, even if untested by cross-examination, constituted admissible evidence under Section 319. The Court noted that the test is not whether the accused will be convicted, but whether the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
The Court further clarified that natural justice does not preclude summoning under Section 319; the accused will have full opportunity to defend himself during trial. The duty of the court is to uncover the truth, and it cannot be paralyzed by investigative conclusions that contradict trial evidence.
The Court distinguished between investigative findings and judicial evidence, affirming that the latter governs the exercise of Section 319 powers. The petitioner’s presence at the scene, as alleged by the complainant, coupled with his name in the FIR and the nature of injuries described, satisfied the threshold of "strong and cogent evidence" required under Hardeep Singh.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order dated 17.02.2026 summoning the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The Court directed that the trial shall proceed with the petitioner as an accused, with full rights to cross-examine witnesses, adduce evidence, and raise defenses. No interim relief was granted, and the petitioner shall be subject to the same procedural safeguards as any other accused.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Investigative Clean Chit Does Not Bar Section 319 Summoning
- Practitioners must now argue that even if a suspect is cleared by investigation, the court may still summon him if trial testimony implicates him.
- A clean chit from the police or a senior officer is not a shield against Section 319 proceedings.
- The burden shifts to the accused to rebut the trial evidence during trial, not at the summoning stage.
Trial Evidence Trumps Investigative Reports
- Only evidence recorded before the court - including examination-in-chief - can be considered under Section 319.
- Investigative reports, even from senior officers, are inadmissible for determining whether to summon an additional accused.
- Defense counsel must prepare for the possibility that a non-charge-sheeted person may be added mid-trial based on witness testimony.
Timing of Summoning Is Flexible
- Section 319 can be invoked even after completion of examination-in-chief and before judgment.
- The court need not wait for cross-examination or completion of prosecution evidence.
- This empowers courts to act swiftly to include culpable parties, even if initially overlooked.
