What is the core rule from this case on Section 319 CrPC?

Courts may summon a new accused under Section 319 only on strong and cogent evidence—more than a prima facie view, though not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Is cross-examination necessary before using Section 319?

No. The Supreme Court clarified that deposition can be relied on even if it has not yet faced cross-examination.

Which earlier case guides Section 319 powers?

Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) supplies the controlling tests for exercising Section 319 powers.

Did the Supreme Court finally add the appellant as an accused?

No. It directed the Sessions Court to reconsider the Section 319 application afresh using the correct legal test.

Why does this case matter to students and practitioners?

It shows how high the threshold is to add an accused mid-trial and how trial courts must record clear reasons before invoking Section 319.

Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of UP & Another (2021)

Section 319 CrPC — when can a court summon a new accused during trial?

Supreme Court of India Year: 2021 Bench: Justice K.M. Joseph & Justice P.S. Narasimha CrPC § 319 Reading: ~6 min

Criminal Procedure Summoning Additional Accused Evidence Threshold

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Location: India Publish Date: 18-Feb-2025

Quick Summary

This case explains how and when a trial court may add a new person as an accused under Section 319 CrPC. The Supreme Court repeated the rule that the court needs strong and cogent material—higher than a normal prima facie view, but not as high as full proof.

Here, the Court sent the matter back to the Sessions Court to test the prosecution’s request afresh using the correct legal yardstick from Hardeep Singh (2014).

Issues

Can the trial court summon the appellant as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC on the material available?
Is cross-examination of the witness essential before invoking Section 319?

Rules

Section 319 CrPC: Court may proceed against any person appearing to have committed an offence based on evidence during trial.
Threshold: “Strong and cogent” evidence—more than a prima facie case but short of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
No rigid cross-exam precondition: Deposition can be used even if not yet tested by cross-examination.
Guiding authority: Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014).

Facts — Timeline

23.06.2015: Deceased driver leaves home after employer’s call; later phones to say he is going to Gola with the employer.

Later that day: Phone goes off; unidentified body is found; car located near a government tubewell with the driver’s slippers.

27.06.2015: Wife lodges FIR alleging employer (appellant) and friends murdered her husband.

Post-investigation: Police files charge-sheet against three others; appellant not included.

Witness deposition: Wife reiterates suspicion; details calls and movements.

05.08.2017: Prosecution moves under Section 319 to summon appellant.

11.09.2018: Sessions Court allows the application; High Court upholds.

Supreme Court: Appeal by appellant; Court applies Hardeep Singh test and remits to Sessions Court.

Arguments

Appellant

Material does not cross the “strong and cogent” threshold.
Summoning based on suspicion is not enough under Section 319.
Investigation already excluded the appellant.

Respondent/State

Deposition links the appellant to the last-seen circumstances.
Cross-exam is not a precondition to use deposition for Section 319.
Public interest demands a complete trial against all involved.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and remitted the Section 319 question to the Sessions Court. The trial court must apply the Hardeep Singh standard: act only on strong and cogent evidence and record reasons.

The Court confirmed that deposition can be relied upon even if cross-examination has not happened yet.

Ratio

Section 319 is an extraordinary power. Use it sparingly, only when the trial record reveals material that is more than a prima facie case. Cross-examination is not mandatory for invoking this power.

Why It Matters

Protects against casual addition of accused mid-trial.
Promotes reasoned orders and fair trials.
Aligns trial practice with Hardeep Singh guidance.

Key Takeaways

Threshold: “strong and cogent” evidence is essential.
Cross-examination not a precondition for Section 319.
Sessions Court must apply Hardeep Singh test and give reasons.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Strong Step, Not Snap”

Spot strong and cogent evidence in the trial record.
State clear reasons using the Hardeep Singh test.
Summon only if it rises above prima facie level.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can the court summon the appellant under Section 319 based on the material led at trial?

Rule: Section 319 requires strong and cogent evidence; more than prima facie; cross-exam not mandatory; guided by Hardeep Singh.

Application: Witness deposition places the appellant in a last-seen setting and narrates suspicious circumstances; the trial court must assess if this meets the threshold.

Conclusion: Matter remitted to Sessions Court to apply the correct standard and decide afresh.

Glossary

Section 319 CrPC: Provision allowing the court to proceed against a person who appears to have committed an offence, even if not originally an accused.
Strong & Cogent Evidence: Material that clearly points toward involvement—more than mere suspicion.
Remand/Remit: Sending the matter back to the lower court for reconsideration using the proper legal test.