LexMOHAMMAD KALEEM versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 586 : 2026 INSC 251 Mohammad Kaleem v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1430 of 2026) 17 March 2026 [Sanjay Karol* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the propriety of the exercise of power by the Trial Court u/s.319 Cr.PC and the justifiability of the imprimatur granted thereto by the Court below. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Exercise of power under – Pre-trial scrutiny should not resemble a mini trial – Trial Court and High Court refused to allow the Appellant- complainant’s application to summon additional accused filed u/s.319 holding that the evidence of the complainant was inconsistent with the FIR and the documentary record, and that the statements of PW-6 and PW-7 were mutually contradictory and unreliable and thus, the evidence did not reach the standard required for summoning additional accused u/s.319 – Challenge to: Held: Judgments of the Courts below set aside – Power u/s.319 is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly – Court must assess whether the evidence on record, if unrebutted, reasonably indicates the involvement of the proposed accused – Court need not establish guilt or conduct a detailed credibility assessment at this stage – Pre- trial scrutiny should not resemble a mini trial – Trial Court misdirected itself in this regard – In evaluating minor contradictions between witness statements and plausibility issues such as whether the complainant could have avoided injury, Trial Court effectively applied a stricter standard than necessary – It applied higher than necessary standard by relying on the absence of jail records or highlighting minor discrepancies in hospital admission or FIR details – While these points raise valid questions about reliability, they cannot be gone into threadbare at this stage –Trial Court also erred in taking a fragmented approach while appreciating evidence – It treated each inconsistency in isolation rather than assessing the cumulative * Author [2026] 3 S.C.R. 587 Mohammad Kaleem v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. weight of all testimonies and circumstances – Similarly, reliance on documentary corroboration is not required; oral evidence alone, if credible, may suffice – The Court’s emphasis on the lack of jail records and the physical plausibility of witness accounts exceeded the threshold scrutiny expected at this stage – It overstepped the intended scope of pre-trial scrutiny, overemphasized minor inconsistencies, and did not fully consider the cumulative force of the evidence – The law consistently balances caution against undue summoning with the need to ensure that potentially implicated individuals are brought to trial when the record, taken as a whole, reasonably supports it – Further, the proposed additional accused persons were named as persons involved in the case by way of a larger conspiracy or otherwise, by PW-1, as noticed by the trial court itself and also PWs 6 & 7 – It is a separate matter that, as found by the Trial Court, there are inconsistencies in the overall testimonies of these witnesses but, that is a matter of trial and not within the Court’s scope at the time of considering an application u/s.319 CrPC – The testimony, on oath, by 3 witnesses, including the complainant is sufficient in the facts of this case to meet the strong and cogent evidence standard – The persons who are sought to be produced as additional accused to be produced as such, and proceeded with, in accordance with law – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307, 302 and 120-B. [Paras 8-12] Evidence – Assessment of, depending on the stage of proceedings and the nature of the relief prayed for: Held: Courts generally assess evidence at three distinct levels, depending on the stage of proceedings and the nature of the relief prayed for – The lowest threshold, or prima facie standard, requires only a connection to proceed with formal charges – The middle threshold, which is often described as strong and cogent, applies when Courts consider summoning additional accused u/s.319 CrPC; the evidence must be reliable and reasonably persuasive, but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required – The highest threshold demands proof beyond reasonable doubt, the standard necessary for conviction, where the Court must be fully satisfied of the guilt of the accused. [Para 6] Case Law Cited Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [2014] 2 SCR 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.