Section 319 CrPC: Cross-Examination Cannot Be Ignored: SC

Section 319 CrPC: Trial Court Cannot Ignore Cross-Examination Before Summoning Additional Accused, Says Supreme Court

Published: 27 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court set aside an order summoning Neelam Yadav under Section 319 CrPC to face a murder trial in Lalitpur, and the Allahabad High Court's dismissal of her revision, because both courts overlooked what the informant (PW-1) said in cross-examination. Once a witness has been cross-examined, the trial court cannot shut its eye to the entire statement. The trial court may consider the request to arraign her afresh in accordance with law (paras 9-12).

Key holdings

Section 319 CrPC stops a person involved in the crime escaping through investigative lapses, but is used sparingly, on trial evidence (para 9).

The power may be exercised on a statement-in-chief alone, without awaiting cross-examination (para 9).

Once a witness is cross-examined, the trial court cannot shut its eye to that part of his evidence (para 9).

Both orders, which overlooked PW-1's cross-examination, were set aside with liberty to decide the request afresh (paras 10-12).

The Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or evidence (para 13).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

An FIR registered on 25.07.2022 at Police Station Jakhaura, District Lalitpur, under Section 302 IPC named the appellant and the informant's brother as accused. It alleged that on 23.07.2022 the two demanded the brother's share from the informant's father and, when he refused to execute the transfer instrument, the appellant held his hand while the brother stabbed him with a knife (para 4). The chargesheet was laid only against the brother (para 5). After PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were examined, the trial court summoned the appellant under Section 319 CrPC by order dated 03.01.2026 in S.T. No. 463 of 2022; the Allahabad High Court dismissed her revision, Criminal Revision No. 957 of 2026, on 16.02.2026 (paras 3, 5).

Court's Findings

One object of the power to arraign an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is that a person involved in the crime should not escape the law because of lapses by the investigating agency, but the power is to be exercised sparingly, on the evidence led during trial (para 9). Evidence in Section 319 is not confined to a statement tested by cross-examination, and the power can be exercised on a witness's statement-in-chief without awaiting his cross-examination (para 9). Where the witness has been cross-examined, however, the trial court cannot shut its eye to the entire statement, because evidence includes what he says in cross-examination (para 9). The trial court is not to weigh the statement on the anvil of probabilities or against other evidence; but if the cross-examination demolishes the edifice of the statement in chief, and the decision rests entirely on that statement, it cannot be overlooked. Having considered the whole statement, the trial court decides whether to arraign (para 9). Here neither court had considered the depositions, particularly PW-1's, in their entirety, and both overlooked his cross-examination, so both orders were set aside (paras 10-11).

Legal Principle

The power under Section 319 CrPC may be exercised on a witness's statement-in-chief without awaiting cross-examination. Once the witness has been cross-examined, the trial court must consider the whole statement: if the cross-examination demolishes the statement in chief on which the summoning entirely rests, it cannot be overlooked, though the final decision remains the trial court's (para 9).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For trial courts asked to summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, this order adds a simple check: if the witness has already been cross-examined, read the cross-examination before acting on the statement in chief (para 9). The court still does not weigh probabilities, but it must deal with answers that undo the witness's account when the summoning rests on that witness alone (para 9). A person summoned on such a record should point to the overlooked passages in revision. Here the request returns to the trial court at Lalitpur, which may decide it afresh, and nothing has been said on the merits (paras 10-13). Compare Sukhpal Singh Khaira on summoning additional accused.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.