In Brief
In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the trial court properly exercised its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon appellants as accused, despite them not being named in the chargesheet. The sole basis was the first informant's trial testimony naming them, which contradicted her own earlier statement exonerating them. The Court held that Section 319 requires a much stricter degree of satisfaction—evidence that, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Since the informant was not an eyewitness, no other witnesses supported her trial version, and her own prior statement explicitly stated she falsely named the appellants on suspicion due to old enmity, the Court quashed the summoning order and set aside both the trial court's order and the High Court's dismissal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.