Summary of Analysis Shiv Baran vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

1.Heading of the Judgment

Case: Shiv Baran vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date: July 16, 2025
Outcome: Appeal allowed; Accused (Rajendra Prasad Yadav) summoned for trial.

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment centers on Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Key legal principles discussed:

• Section 319 CrPC: Allows courts to summon additional accused if trial evidence reveals their involvement in the offence.

• Evidentiary Standard:
  Evidence must show stronger than prima facie complicity (more than framing charges, but less than proof for conviction).
  Untested testimony (examination-in-chief) is sufficient; cross-examination is not mandatory at this stage.

• Key Precedents:
  Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014): Confirmed that examination-in-chief alone can justify summoning.
  Labhuji Amraiji Thakor v. State of Gujarat (2019): Clarified the "stronger than prima facie" test.
  S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak (2017): Upheld summoning of persons named in FIR but not charge-sheeted.

3. Basic Case Details

• Incident: Murder/assault on November 29, 2017 (FIR lodged by appellant Shiv Baran).

• Accused: Initially, four were named (Rahul, Dinesh, Rajendra, Shiv Moorat).

• Charge Sheet: Police exonerated Rajendra Prasad Yadav (Respondent No. 2); only Dinesh and Shiv Murat were charged.

• Trial Court: Summoned Rajendra under Section 319 CrPC (September 28, 2023) based on witness testimonies.

• High Court: Quashed the summons (July 23, 2024), claiming insufficient evidence.

• Supreme Court: Reversed the High Court, restoring the summons.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Core Issue

Whether the Trial Court rightly summoned Rajendra Prasad Yadav as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC based on witness evidence.

Supreme Court's Reasoning

1. Witness Testimonies Implicated Rajendra:
   PW1 (Shiv Baran): Consistently named Rajendra in the FIR and court statements, assigning him a specific role (armed with a baton).
   PW2 & PW3: Also named Rajendra as present at the crime scene with a weapon.
   Consistency: Minor discrepancies (e.g., "Rajesh" instead of "Rajendra") were deemed inconsequential.

2. High Court's Errors:
   Applied a conviction-level standard (e.g., demanding proof of motive, sequence of events) instead of the lower threshold for summoning.
   Ignored the specific role attributed to Rajendra (armed with a weapon).
   Relied on irrelevant material (e.g., affidavits to police) instead of trial evidence.

3. Legal Principles Reaffirmed:
   Section 319 CrPC empowers courts to ensure "no guilty person escapes trial."
   Evidence Standard:
   Must be cogent and strong (more than mere suspicion).
   Examination-in-chief suffices; no need to wait for cross-examination (Hardeep Singh).
   No Mini-Trial: Courts must avoid deep scrutiny of merits at the summoning stage.

4. Outcome:
   The evidence met the threshold for summoning Rajendra.
   The Trial Court’s order (September 28, 2023) was restored; Rajendra must face trial.
   Trial expedited to conclude within 18 months.

Key Takeaway

Courts must summon additional accused if trial evidence prima facie reveals their involvement, even if:

• They were initially exonerated by police,

• Their role emerges from untested witness statements, or

• The FIR/charge sheet did not name them.
  However, this power must be used cautiously to prevent harassment.

Final Order:

• High Court’s order quashed.

• Trial Court’s summons to Rajendra Prasad Yadav revived.

• Trial to resume by August 28, 2025.