Much stricter degree of satisfaction required to summon under Section 319 of CrPC: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said a stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity of a man is required to summon him under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code during the trial.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Aravind Kumar underscored that the degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 CrPC to summon a person as an accused is much stricter, as it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power of the court.

The top court set aside Allahabad High Court's order, dismissing a plea by Shankar and Vishal Singh to quash the summoning order issued against them under Section 319 of the CrPC to face trial in a murder case of 2011 in Kanpur Dehat.

The court noted flip flop in statement of the mother of the deceased who named the appellants as accused in the FIR but clarified in her statement before the police saying she had named them due to previous enmity.

In her cross examination, she clarified that as the enmity with the appellants family was going on for the last eleven years, names of the appellants were mentioned in the FIR on the basis of suspicion.

The court held that the trial court committed a serious error in allowing the application under Section 319 and issuing summons to the appellants.

The High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 and quashed the order, the bench opined.

"The degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under Section 319 CrPC is well settled. The evidence before the trial court should be such that if it goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the person who is sought to be summoned," the court said.

The court explained only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised.

"It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity," the bench said.

The court also said since the mother of the deceased was not an eye-witness, her deposition was not sufficient enough to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 to summon the appellants.

The court held the higher degree of satisfaction that is required for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC was not met in the present case.

It also found no other witness deposed against the appellants and no documentary evidence was collected against them.