LexSATBIR SINGH versus RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 416 Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2025) 01 April 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it set aside the order of the trial court summoning respondents as additional accused for facing trial along with the principal accused. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to summon additional accused – Altercation between the appellant-serving in Army and the accused, after which accused armed with a knife along with others armed with lathi and danda, came back – Appellant seriously injured after being stabbed by the accused in the waist and chest, while one of the co-accused had caught hold of the appellant – Two others beat the appellant and one threatened him – Cross case registered against accused and co-accused – Charges were framed against accused – Application u/s.319 by the appellant, for summoning co-accused to face trial – Allowed by the Sessions Judge, however set aside by the High Court – Interference: Held: High Court failed to consider the matter from the proper perspective and arrived at an entirely wrong conclusion – No conclusive finding can be given that the co-accused-respondents were not involved merely on the basis of reports of the Deputy Superintendents of Police – 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 the respondents and that their complicity in the crime has to be examined and tested on evidence being led at the trial – To ascertain whether the Sessions Judge in allowing the application u/s.319 had acted mechanically or in a manner not authorised by law or in derogation of the law, the High Court was well within its competence to adopt an ‘eyes on’ approach, * Author 2 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports considering the nature of power conferred on the High Court by the Cr.PC as the revisional court, but regard being had to the facts and circumstances, a ‘hands off’ approach would have been advisable and the correct approach – Conclusion of the Sessions Judge was a plausible one and not an absurd one so as to warrant interference by the High Court – Impugned judgment set aside and that of the Sessions Judge restored – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.34, 307, 323, 324, 506 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25. [Paras 13, 16-19] Case Law Cited Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [2014] 2 SCR 1 : (2014) 3 SCC 92 – followed. Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another [2023] 7 SCR 642 : (2023) 7 SCC 344 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959. List of Keywords Summoning additional accused; Altercation; Adopt an ‘eyes on’ approach; Adopta ‘hands off’ approach; Plausible conclusion; Revisional court. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2024 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 1357 of 2021 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Siddharth Jain, Sanjay Singh, Umang Shankar, Vidyut Kayarkar, Shailendra Negi. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Manisha Aggarwal Narain, A.A.G., Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Nawab Singh Jaglan, Rishi Raj Sharma, Jasbir, Samar Vijay Singh, Sandeep Singh Somaria, Chandan Deep Singh, Akash Gupta, Akhil Gupta, Ms. Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh [2025] 5 S.C.R. 3 Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Dipankar Datta, J. 1. This criminal appeal arises out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10653 of 2024, which is at the instance of Satbir Singh.1 Under challenge therein is the judgment and order dated 7th March, 20242 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Vide the impugned order, while allowing a revisional application3 filed by Rajesh Kumar, Sagar @ Bittoo, Niraj and Ankit (respondents in the said special leave petition), the High Court set aside an order dated 13th September, 2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal.4 The Sessions Judge, by the order impugned in the revisional application, had allowed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19735 filed by the appellant,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.