KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL (LINK ON FIRST PAGE)

KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL:

LEGAL STUDY MATERIAL FOR
ALL

Motto: To support and uplift aspiring legal minds

CLAT PG 2026
CASE SUMMARY With MCQ
Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar & Others

AN INITIATIVE BY-
UJJAWAL DIXIT SUNIDHI SACHDEVA
Advocate, Allahabad High Court B.A.LLB (JMI, New Delhi)
B.A.LLB (NLU NAGPUR) CLAT PG 2024- AIR 50
LLM (RML NLU) CLAT PG 2025 -AIR 2
CLAT PG 2023- AIR 35 Qualified- Haryana Judiciary
CLAT PG 2024-AIR 22 Mains And Delhi Judiciary Mains
UGC NET Qualified

FOR MORE FREE MATERIAL AND MOCK JOIN TELEGRAM

https://t.me/+OldBBBV1wq5hYTU1
 KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL (LINK ON FIRST PAGE)

Scope of Section 319 CrPC – Summoning Additional Accused on

the Basis of Examination-in-Chief

Case Title: Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 375
Date of Judgment: April 1, 2025
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan

1. Issue Involved:
Whether a court can summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC based on
examination-in-chief alone, without waiting for cross-examination to conclude.
2. Facts of the Case:
o The trial court, based on the unrebutted chief examination of the complainant
(Satbir Singh), allowed a Section 319 CrPC application to summon Neeraj and
Rajesh as additional accused.
o Neeraj was alleged to have held the complainant while Mukesh stabbed him.
o Rajesh allegedly issued a death threat after the stabbing.
3. High Court’s Intervention:
o The proposed accused challenged the trial court’s order in revision before the
High Court.
o The High Court re-evaluated the evidence instead of first checking whether
the trial court’s order was perverse or illegal, and set aside the summoning
order.
4. Supreme Court’s Findings:
o The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC.
o It should not have reassessed the evidence unless the trial court’s order was
legally flawed or perverse.

Stage for invoking Section 319 CrPC:

The provision can be invoked after cognizance is taken and during inquiry or trial. It is
not limited to the evidence recorded only after charges are framed but also includes pre-
trial materials and inquiries under Sections 200, 202, or 398 CrPC.
 KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL (LINK ON FIRST PAGE)

Scope of "Evidence":
The term “evidence” in Section 319 is to be broadly interpreted. It is not confined to evidence
tested by cross-examination; even examination-in-chief is sufficient if it discloses material
implicating a person.

Degree of Satisfaction Required:

The satisfaction required for summoning under Section 319 CrPC is higher than prima
facie (as required for framing charges) but lower than full satisfaction necessary for
conviction. The court must believe that the evidence, if unrebutted, may lead to conviction.

Persons who can be summoned:

Even persons not named in the FIR, not charge-sheeted, or discharged can be
summoned, provided there is sufficient material against them. However, if the person has
been discharged, the procedural safeguards under Sections 300 and 398 CrPC must be
followed before summoning.

5. Applicability to Persons Not Initially Named:

o Persons not named in the FIR, or not charge-sheeted, or even discharged, can
be summoned under Section 319 CrPC.
o However, if discharged, Sections 300 and 398 CrPC must be complied with.
6. Approach of Revisional Courts:
o The revisional court should adopt a “hands-off approach” unless clear
illegality or perversity is shown.
o The High Court in this case should not have interfered merely by re-evaluating
the evidence.
7. Final Outcome:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and restored
the trial court’s decision summoning Neeraj and Rajesh.
 KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL (LINK ON FIRST PAGE)

MCQ

1. Under which provision can a court summon a person as an additional accused during
trial based on evidence appearing against them?

A. Section 311 CrPC

B. Section 401 CrPC
C. Section 319 CrPC
D. Section 227 CrPC

Answer: C. Section 319 CrPC

2. In Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar, what did the Supreme Court hold regarding the
requirement of cross-examination before invoking Section 319 CrPC?

A. Cross-examination must be completed

B. Only documentary evidence can be considered
C. Examination-in-chief alone is insufficient
D. Examination-in-chief is sufficient even without cross-examination

Answer: D. Examination-in-chief is sufficient even without cross-examination

3. What is the standard of satisfaction required to summon an accused under Section

319 CrPC?

A. Beyond reasonable doubt

B. Mere suspicion
C. Higher than prima facie but lower than full satisfaction for conviction
D. Same as for conviction

Answer: C. Higher than prima facie but lower than full satisfaction for conviction

4. Which of the following judgments was heavily relied upon by the Supreme Court in
this case?
 KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL (LINK ON FIRST PAGE)

A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

B. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
C. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
D. Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP

Answer: B. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab

5. According to the Supreme Court, what must a revisional court determine before
interfering with a trial court’s summoning order under Section 319 CrPC?

A. Whether the accused was named in the FIR

B. Whether the evidence was collected post-charge
C. Whether the trial court’s order was perverse or illegal
D. Whether the accused was granted anticipatory bail

Answer: C. Whether the trial court’s order was perverse or illegal

6. Can a person who has been discharged be summoned under Section 319 CrPC?

A. No, once discharged, a person cannot be summoned again

B. Yes, but only if he was named in the FIR
C. Yes, subject to compliance with Sections 300 and 398 CrPC
D. Only if he confesses

Answer: C. Yes, subject to compliance with Sections 300 and 398 CrPC

7. What does Section 401 CrPC deal with?

A. Framing of charges
B. Appeals in Sessions Court
C. Revisional powers of High Court
D. Power to grant bail

Answer: C. Revisional powers of High Court

8. According to Hardeep Singh and reaffirmed in Satbir Singh, the term “evidence”
under Section 319 CrPC includes:
 KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL (LINK ON FIRST PAGE)

A. Only evidence tested by cross-examination

B. Only police investigation reports
C. Evidence collected during investigation and trial
D. Only confession statements

Answer: C. Evidence collected during investigation and trial

9. What approach did the Supreme Court suggest the High Court should have adopted
in revisional jurisdiction in this case?

A. Interventionist approach
B. Hands-off approach
C. Activist approach
D. Evidence-based approach

Answer: B. Hands-off approach

10. What was the final decision of the Supreme Court in Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar &
Others?

A. Appeal dismissed, High Court's order upheld

B. Matter remanded to the trial court
C. Appeal allowed, trial court's summoning order restored
D. Case transferred to another bench

Answer: C. Appeal allowed, trial court's summoning order restored