In Brief
In a murder case involving Mohammad Ammar, the complainant sought to summon two additional accused, Rajendra and Mausam, based on witness testimony about a jail conspiracy. The Trial Court and High Court rejected this application, citing contradictions in witness statements and implausible details. The Supreme Court set aside both orders, holding that the testimony of three witnesses—the complainant and two others—met the "strong and cogent evidence" standard required for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The Court clarified that minor inconsistencies and absence of documentary records cannot bar summoning; pre-trial scrutiny should not apply trial-level credibility standards.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.