Criminal Procedure Code

Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

(2017) 7 SCC 706

Facts

A murder case was registered in which Brijendra Singh and others were named in the FIR.
During investigation, police examined their plea that they were elsewhere when the offence occurred.
Documentary and official material indicated that two of the proposed accused, who were police personnel, were posted and present at Jaipur at the relevant time.
The investigating agency therefore did not include them in the charge-sheet.
During trial, the complainant and other witnesses repeated the allegations appearing in the FIR.
On that basis, the trial court invoked Section 319 CrPC and summoned the persons omitted from the charge-sheet.
The High Court affirmed the summoning order.
The proposed accused appealed to the Supreme Court. ( )

What degree of evidence is required before a person may be summoned as an additional accused under Section 319.
Whether repetition of an FIR allegation during testimony is by itself sufficient.
Whether the court must consider significant investigative material.

Section 319 is an extraordinary power because it brings a person into an ongoing criminal trial.
The threshold is higher than the ordinary prima facie standard used for:
cognizance;
summons;
or framing charge.
Under Hardeep Singh, the evidence must be:
strong;
cogent;
and more than a mere probability of involvement, though proof sufficient for conviction is not required.
The court should consider the evidence appearing during inquiry or trial together with relevant material bearing directly on its reliability.
The power must not be exercised mechanically simply because a witness names another person.
BNSS Section 358 corresponds to Section 319. ( )

The witnesses repeated their earlier allegations during trial.
Ordinarily, sworn testimony may provide the basis for Section 319.
However, the court was required to assess whether that testimony crossed the unusually high statutory threshold.
The investigation had not merely ignored the proposed accused.
It had examined their whereabouts and collected:
official records;
posting details;
and other documents supporting the alibi.
The trial court did not meaningfully address that material.
It treated the witness repetition as automatically sufficient.
The Supreme Court clarified that a trial court is not bound by the police’s decision not to charge-sheet a person.
Nevertheless, where the investigation contains material that directly and substantially contradicts the witness allegation, the court cannot disregard it without reasons.
Otherwise, Section 319 would become equivalent to ordinary summoning.
Bringing in a new accused has serious consequences:
proceedings against that person begin afresh;
witnesses may have to be reheard;
and the trial is delayed.
Therefore, the court must record why the evidence is sufficiently compelling to overcome the contrary material.
That heightened evaluation was missing.

The Supreme Court set aside the orders summoning Brijendra Singh and the others.
It held that the trial court had not applied the Hardeep Singh standard of strong and cogent evidence.
Mere repetition of the FIR allegations, without dealing with significant documentary material supporting the alibi, was insufficient.
The case demonstrates that Section 319 is not a routine corrective power. ( )