Reaffirming the Power to Summon Non-Charge-Sheeted Persons Under Section 319 Cr.PC

Introduction

In the case of Draupadi Kunwar @ Draupati Kunwar v. The State of Bihar, before the Patna High Court (Criminal Revision No. 410 of 2021), the petitioners challenged an order passed by the Trial Court summoning them under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). They were named in the First Information Report (FIR) but were not charge-sheeted following the police investigation. The central issue revolved around whether, in the absence of a charge-sheet, they could still be summoned to face trial on the strength of witness testimony during the ongoing proceedings.

The petitioners contended that Section 319 Cr.PC was not applicable to them because they were already “accused” in the FIR but were found innocent by the investigation and therefore “exonerated.” Contrary to this contention, the prosecution and the High Court held that Section 319 Cr.PC clearly empowers courts to summon any person — whether or not charge-sheeted — if sufficient evidence emerges during trial.

This commentary unpacks the background, the court’s key findings, and the legal principles clarified by this judgment. It also breaks down the complexities of the law so that the significance of the decision becomes clear.

Summary of the Judgment

The Patna High Court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order of the Trial Court. The Court ruled that individuals named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted can indeed be summoned under Section 319 Cr.PC if strong and cogent evidence appears during the trial indicating their complicity in the alleged crime. Drawing extensively on Supreme Court precedents such as Hardeep Singh v. State Of Punjab and related decisions, the High Court emphasized that Section 319 Cr.PC is intended to ensure that all who may actually be guilty of an offense face trial.

In the present case, the High Court noted that three prosecution witnesses testified about the petitioners’ direct involvement in setting the informant’s hut on fire. This constituted “strong and cogent” evidence sufficient to warrant their summoning under Section 319 Cr.PC. The Court pointed out that the purpose of Section 319 is to prevent guilty persons from evading justice through investigative or prosecutorial errors or manipulations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The High Court undertook a comprehensive survey of Supreme Court jurisprudence on Section 319 Cr.PC, notably:

Hardeep Singh v. State Of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92: A Constitution Bench elucidated the scope of Section 319 Cr.PC, clarifying that courts can summon any person — whether named or not named in the FIR; whether charge-sheeted or not; or even previously discharged — if sufficient evidence emerges. The Court laid down the “strong and cogent evidence” test, emphasizing that the power should be exercised sparingly and with caution.
S. Mohammad Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 226: Reaffirmed a trial court’s power to summon persons who were not charged by the police when evidence surfaces in the course of proceedings.
Rajesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2019) 6 SCC 368: Clarified that even if the stage for filing a protest petition had passed, Section 319 Cr.PC still empowers the court to arraign additional persons if new evidence implicates them.
Manjeet Singh v. State Of Haryana (2021) 18 SCC 321: Summarized core principles on the scope of Section 319 Cr.PC, confirming that it extends to persons who were named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted.
JITENDRA NATH MISHRA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2023) 7 SCC 344: Emphasized the “more than prima facie” standard for invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.PC.

These precedents guided the Court in determining that the petitioners, though initially named and later not charge-sheeted, could still be summoned based on the prosecution witnesses’ statements during the trial.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rests on the principle that Section 319 Cr.PC grants a trial court inherent discretion to call any person to face trial if, during judicial proceedings, the evidence so justifies. The “strong and cogent” standard is higher than the prima facie threshold needed at the time of framing of charges but is short of the certainty required for conviction.

In applying this principle, the Patna High Court undertook a thorough examination of the three prosecution witnesses’ testimonies. Each witness directly implicated the petitioners in the alleged offense of setting fire to the informant’s hut. The Court was satisfied that these statements contained enough probative force to place the petitioners on trial.

Notably, the Court addressed an earlier single-judge ruling (Shivjee Singh v. State Of Bihar) upon which the petitioners relied. That ruling had set aside the summoning of persons not charge-sheeted under Section 319 Cr.PC. However, the High Court found that decision to be contrary to the authoritative Constitutional Bench precedent Hardeep Singh, stressing that Shivjee Singh was, therefore, per incuriam and not binding.

Impact

The decision reinforces the powerful remedial function of Section 319 Cr.PC in India’s criminal justice system. Courts are reminded that even if investigative authorities or the prosecution have omitted individuals from the charge-sheet, the judiciary retains autonomy to summon them if in-trial evidence reveals complicity.

Future cases involving non-charge-sheeted suspects — regardless of their status at the investigation stage — may well see broader reliance on this power. Accused individuals who might otherwise have been overlooked for various investigative reasons must now be prepared to face summons if credible testimony implicates them at trial.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 319 Cr.PC: This provision allows the court to summon additional accused if it appears from the “evidence” (statements made and admitted during trial) that such persons have committed an offense that should be tried along with the current accused.

“Evidence” Under Section 319: The term “evidence” in this context means evidence formally placed on record in court, typically through witness testimony and documentary submissions. It does not include the mere statements or materials collected by the police during investigation, unless such material is brought before the court as evidence.

“More Than Prima Facie” Case: While summoning additional accused, courts require a level of satisfaction stronger than mere prima facie suspicion but still less than the level required to convict. It essentially means there must be compelling, direct, or corroborated evidence pointing toward the potential guilt of the person in question.

Per Incuriam: A decision is said to be rendered per incuriam when it has been delivered in ignorance or disregard of binding authority. In this judgment, the High Court noted that a single judge’s decision in Shivjee Singh had overlooked the binding Constitution Bench precedent in Hardeep Singh.

Conclusion

By dismissing the revision petition, the Patna High Court has reiterated that Section 319 Cr.PC serves as an essential judicial safeguard. It ensures that any person who appears — on the basis of strong evidence at trial — to be involved in the alleged offense may be brought to stand trial, even if police investigations initially failed to charge that individual.

In a broader legal landscape, this ruling preserves the judiciary’s power to correct oversights by investigative or prosecutorial bodies, upholding the principle that no individual, if credibly implicated, can escape justice by virtue of having been omitted from a charge-sheet. This reaffirmation aligns with longstanding Supreme Court jurisprudence and ensures the integrity of the criminal trial process.