Case at a Glance
A woman named in a 2022 murder FIR from Lalitpur was not chargesheeted, but the trial court later summoned her as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC on the strength of the informant’s examination-in-chief, and the Allahabad High Court upheld that order. In cross-examination, however, the informant had said he did not see anyone attack his father and named the accused at villagers’ prompting. The Supreme Court set aside both orders, holding that once a witness has been cross-examined the trial court “cannot shut its eye to the entire statement”, and gave the trial court liberty to consider the request afresh.
An FIR under Section 302 IPC was registered on 25 July 2022 at Police Station Jakhaura, District Lalitpur, naming Raman Singh and the appellant. It alleged that on 23 July 2022 the two came to the informant’s house demanding a share in property from the informant’s father; when he refused, the appellant allegedly held his hand while the co-accused stabbed him. The chargesheet was filed only against the co-accused.
After three prosecution witnesses were examined, an application was made to arraign the appellant. The Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur summoned her under Section 319 CrPC, and the Allahabad High Court dismissed her revision on 16 February 2026. In cross-examination, the informant (PW1) had stated that he did not see anyone attack his father, that he lodged the FIR at the villagers’ insistence and named the accused at their prompting; PW2 and PW3 were declared hostile.
The Key Question Before the Court
When deciding whether to summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, can the trial court rely on a witness’s examination-in-chief while ignoring his cross-examination?
‘Evidence’ under Section 319 means the whole statement
The Bench recalled that Section 319 exists so that a person involved in a crime does not escape because of lapses in investigation, but the power is to be used sparingly and on the basis of evidence led at trial. The Court explained that ‘evidence’ is not limited to examination-in-chief. A court may act on the examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination, but where the witness has already been cross-examined, “the trial court cannot shut its eye to the entire statement.” In particular, “if the statement of a witness during cross-examination demolishes the edifice of his statement in chief,” the court cannot ignore it when its decision rests entirely on that witness.
At the same time, the Court cautioned that the trial court is not to weigh the testimony on the anvil of probabilities or against other evidence at this stage; it must simply consider the full statement and then decide, in its discretion, whether to arraign the additional accused. Since neither the trial court nor the High Court had considered PW1’s deposition in its entirety, especially the cross-examination, both orders could not stand. The order does not cite precedents.
What the Court Actually Held
- In exercising power under Section 319 CrPC, the term ‘evidence’ is not confined to examination-in-chief; once a witness is cross-examined, the court must consider the entire statement.
- Where cross-examination demolishes the examination-in-chief on which summoning rests, the trial court cannot ignore it, though it is not to weigh the evidence on probabilities at that stage.
- The orders of the trial court and the Allahabad High Court summoning the appellant were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
- The trial court is at liberty to reconsider the prayer for arraigning the additional accused in accordance with law; the Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Section 319 (now Section 358 BNSS) applications are common in trials; this order sets a clear procedural expectation for trial courts.
- It guards against people being dragged into trial on part of a witness’s testimony while contrary admissions are ignored.
- It preserves the trial court’s discretion while insisting that it be exercised on the full record.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Persons Sought to Be Summoned
- Point the court to any cross-examination that contradicts the examination-in-chief relied on for summoning.
- A summoning order that ignores the cross-examination can be challenged on that ground.
For Counsel
- While moving or opposing a Section 319 / 358 BNSS application, place the complete deposition — chief and cross — before the court.
- Remember the court will not conduct a mini-trial or weigh probabilities, but must read the whole statement.
- Note that the Supreme Court left the door open for a fresh application decided in accordance with law.
Key Takeaways
- Section 319 CrPC summoning must be based on the witness’s entire statement once cross-examination is over.
- Cross-examination that demolishes the chief cannot be ignored.
- The trial court still does not weigh evidence on probabilities at this stage.
- Both lower court orders were set aside with liberty for fresh consideration.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Section 319 CrPC?
It allows a criminal court to proceed against a person not already an accused if evidence in the trial shows that person appears to have committed the offence. Its equivalent under the new law is Section 358 of the BNSS.
Can a court summon an additional accused based only on examination-in-chief?
It may act on the examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination. But if the witness has already been cross-examined, the court must consider the whole statement and cannot ignore cross-examination that undermines the chief.
Is the woman in this case finally discharged?
No. The Supreme Court set aside the summoning orders but gave the trial court liberty to reconsider the request afresh in accordance with law, without expressing any view on the merits.
Conclusion
This short order sharpens a routine but consequential power. Summoning someone to face a murder trial is a serious step, and the Supreme Court has made clear that a witness’s own retractions in cross-examination must be part of the court’s consideration before that step is taken.
Practical takeaway: In any Section 319 / 358 BNSS hearing, put the full deposition, including cross-examination, before the court and insist that the order deals with it.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com