Punjab & Haryana High Court upholds summoning of accused under Section 319 CrPC in murder case, finds prima facie evidence of participation

Case Name: Salim @ Baniya @ Tasleem v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: October 08, 2025
Citation: CRR-2447-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused challenging his summoning under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the trial court had correctly exercised its powers based on direct eyewitness accounts corroborated by medical evidence, which clearly attributed a specific role to the petitioner in the fatal assault. It reiterated that a person can be summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC when there exists strong and cogent evidence appearing during trial, showing active participation in the offence.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the order dated August 22, 2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, summoning him as an additional accused in FIR No. 301 of 2023 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 506, and 120-B IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Nuh. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused Sallu @ Salmuddin and others, assaulted the complainant’s father, Liyakat, with sticks and iron rods, and subsequently crushed him under a Bolero vehicle, causing instantaneous death.

Initially, the petitioner and one co-accused were found innocent during investigation and placed in Column No. 2 of the charge sheet. However, during trial, the complainant (PW5) and an eyewitness mechanic (PW6) specifically deposed that the petitioner struck Liyakat on the head with a danda before the vehicle was driven over him. Based on this evidence, the trial court allowed the prosecution’s application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the petitioner for trial along with the other accused.

The petitioner argued that no weapon had been recovered from him, that he was named merely on suspicion, and that the incident was a road accident rather than a premeditated murder. The Court rejected these submissions, noting that the complainant’s statement was corroborated by the postmortem report showing multiple contusions and skull fractures consistent with a blow from a blunt weapon.

Decision: The Court held that the ocular and medical evidence established prima facie culpability of the petitioner in the assault leading to the deceased’s death. It found no illegality in the trial court’s decision to summon the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC and dismissed the revision petition as meritless.