Case Summary of Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others 2025, 

Citation 2025 INSC 416, Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2025 | Decided on April 1, 2025

Author of the Case Summary: Parth Singh[1] and Suryaveer Singh Surjewala[2]

Download the Case Summary from here

I. Contextual Background

Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), has long been a subject of nuanced judicial interpretation in India. 

i. What is Section 319 of CrPC, 1973?

“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then -

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.”

ii. What is the similar section of 319 from Old CrPC to new BNSS 2023?

Section 358 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[3]

“358. Power to Proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then-

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.”

“The Sessions Judge is encouraged to take the trial to its logical conclusion, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.” — Hon'ble Dipankar Datta, J.[4]

It empowers courts to summon additional accused at any stage during inquiry or trial, provided there is evidence suggesting their complicity. However, its use raises a delicate tension between the investigative conclusions of the police and judicial discretion of the trial court. The Supreme Court, in its landmark Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, provided a legal precedent on when and how this discretionary power should be exercised, with careful view of its application.

This judgment by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others fits squarely within this broader jurisprudential debate. The case illustrates how courts must weigh the testimony of victims and other prosecution evidence against prior investigative reports, which may have exonerated certain individuals. It thus offers a vital precedent on the scope and autonomy of the trial court’s power under Section 319 CrPC, reaffirming that such power must be exercised with independent judicial satisfaction rather than blind reliance on police findings.

II. Factual Background

1. As per the Judgement, the factual matrix is that on February 9, 2020, an altercation occurred during a volleyball match in village Rasulpur Khurd, Karnal. 

2. The appellant, Satbir Singh, an Indian Army personnel on leave, was seriously injured and later hospitalized. 

3. His initial statement could not be recorded due to his medical condition. 

4. The police, based on one Mukesh’s version (who was also injured), initially filed a case against Satbir. However, upon Satbir’s recovery, he provided a statement implicating Mukesh as the one who stabbed him, allegedly aided by Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, Ankit, and Rajesh Kumar.

5. While Mukesh was charge-sheeted under Sections 307, 323, 324, and 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, police investigations exonerated the others. 

6. Multiple Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) and the SHO found no involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj. Consequently, they were not included in the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

7. During trial, Satbir testified as PW-1 and reiterated specific allegations against Rajesh and Neeraj. 

8. On this basis, he moved an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon them as additional accused. 

9. The Sessions Judge allowed the application, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed the order in revision, giving primacy to the absence of corroborative medical evidence and the findings of the police. This led to the present appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

III. Supreme Court of India’s Judgement

The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the order of the Sessions Judge, holding that the High Court had adopted an erroneous approach and unduly interfered with a plausible and lawful exercise of discretion.

IV. Legal Analysis of the Judgement

1. Threshold for Summoning under Section 319 CrPC

The Court re-affirmed the law laid down in Hardeep Singh, emphasizing that:

“The degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 CrPC would be the same as for framing a charge... much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.”

It reiterated that cross-examination is not a prerequisite for invoking Section 319. Testimony in the examination-in-chief may suffice if it meets the standard laid down.

2. Rejection of Over-reliance on Police Reports

In response to the High Court’s deference to multiple DSP reports and the SHO’s conclusion, the Court held:

“No conclusive finding can be given that Rajesh and Neeraj were not involved merely on the basis of such reports.”

The Court emphasized that judicial discretion must not be subordinated to police opinion. The trial court’s role is distinct and must rely on evidence presented in court.

3. Evaluation of Specific Allegations

The appellant’s testimony clearly implicated:

• Neeraj: For restraining him while Mukesh stabbed him.
• Rajesh: For threatening him after the incident with the words.

These were direct allegations, not vague conjectures. As the Court noted:

“The Sessions Judge formed a satisfaction higher than a prima facie satisfaction... their complicity in the crime has to be examined and tested on evidence being led at the trial.”

4. Scope of High Court’s Revisional Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court cautioned that the High Court should have adopted a "hands-off" approach:

“The conclusion of the Sessions Judge was a plausible conclusion and not an absurd one so as to warrant interference...”

Even though revisional courts can scrutinize the legality of trial court orders, the standard for interference is not to substitute their view where the lower court has acted within bounds.

V. Authors Analysis

This judgment serves as an important precedent in reaffirming that judicial discretion under Section 319 CrPC is not limited or curtailed by investigative outcomes. It underscores that a trial court's findings—if grounded in cogent evidence—deserve deference even in the face of contrary police reports.

As the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India noted:

“Having regard to the version of the appellant in course of examination-in-chief, the Sessions Judge formed a satisfaction higher than a prima facie satisfaction of the alleged involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj and that their complicity in the crime has to be examined and tested on evidence being led at the trial.”

By restoring the Sessions Judge’s order, the Court has sent a clear message that victim testimony during trial remains a vital source of evidence and can independently trigger the summoning of additional accused.

As the Hon’ble Apex Court further analysed:

“We have no hesitation to hold that the conclusion of the Sessions Judge was a plausible conclusion and not an absurd one so as to warrant interference by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.”

This decision is likely to have far-reaching effects, especially in criminal trials where powerful or influential individuals escape police charges despite credible evidence surfacing during trial. It preserves the autonomy and integrity of the judiciary in its core fact-finding function.

This line lays down a crucial precedent regarding the revisional court’s scope of interference under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC when reviewing an order summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC:

• Revisional jurisdiction should not be used to substitute a plausible view taken by the lower court, unless it is manifestly absurd, perverse, or illegal.
• It reinforces the ‘hands-off’ approach where the lower court's view is reasoned and legally sustainable.

VI. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others significantly strengthens the judiciary’s interpretive role under Section 319 CrPC. It guards against mechanical reliance on investigative reports and upholds the primacy of trial testimony in determining who should face criminal charges.

Held: Appeal allowed. High Court’s order set aside. Sessions Judge’s summoning order restored. The trial is to continue without being influenced by any observations in this decision.

 Footnotes:   

[1]Parth Singh an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, he is currently pursuing an LLM at Columbia Law School (2024–2025), while undertaking the role of a Human Rights Clinic Fellow at Columbia University (Singh, 2024). In addition, Singh is part of the Editorial Team for the Columbia Human Rights Law Review (HRLR and JLM), underscoring his commitment to academic discourse in human rights law (Singh, 2025). His academic background is distinguished by a triple master’s portfolio: an M.A. in Criminal Law & Forensic Science (with distinction) from NALSAR University, an MBL (Masters of Business Law) from NLSIU, Bangalore, and an LLM (Masters of Law) from MNLU, Mumbai. Complementing these accomplishments is his B.A. LL.B from O.P. Jindal Global University. Notably, Singh was among the youngest Judicial Law Clerks appointed by the Chief Justice of India in 2021, reflecting his precocious engagement with India’s highest judicial institution.

[2]Advocate at High Court of Punjab and Haryana

[3] [Similar to Section 319 from Old CrPC-Also Refer]

[4] Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar, 2025 INSC 416