Section 319 CrPC | Supreme Court Says Courts Cannot Conduct “Mini Trial” Before Summoning Additional Accused

The Supreme Court has held that while courts must act cautiously before summoning additional accused during a criminal trial, they should not apply an excessively strict standard or conduct what effectively becomes a “mini trial” at the Section 319, CrPC (corresponding to Section 358 of the BNSS) stage.

"The law has consistently balanced caution against undue summoning additional accused in a criminal trial with the need to ensure that potentially implicated individuals are brought to trial when the record, taken as a whole, reasonably supports it," Court said.

Setting aside orders of the Allahabad High Court and a trial court in Uttar Pradesh, the apex court said the testimony of three witnesses, including the complainant, was sufficient to summon two additional accused in a 2017 murder case from Muzaffarnagar. Court said inconsistencies in witness statements are matters to be tested during trial and not grounds to reject a Section 319 application at the threshold stage.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal filed by Mohammad Kaleem and held that the trial court had applied a higher standard than required while considering the plea to summon additional accused Mumtaz and Aabid.

What did the Supreme Court say about the standard for summoning additional accused?

Answering this, the Bench explained that courts examine evidence at different thresholds depending on the stage of the case. At the initial stage, only a prima facie connection is required. For summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, Court said the standard is “strong and cogent evidence”, which is higher than mere suspicion but lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt required for conviction.

The Bench observed that the trial court had correctly referred to earlier Supreme Court rulings, including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and Neeraj Kumar v. State of UP (2025), which describe the power under Section 319 CrPC as extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly. However, it said the trial court ultimately misapplied those principles by scrutinising the evidence too deeply.

The Supreme Court said the trial court focused excessively on minor contradictions in witness statements and questions such as whether the complainant could have escaped injury, thereby applying a stricter test than required at that stage. It also said the trial court wrongly examined each inconsistency separately instead of considering the cumulative effect of the evidence on record.

Can oral testimony alone justify summoning an accused under Section 319 CrPC?

The Bench answered this in the affirmative and clarified that documentary corroboration is not mandatory at the Section 319 stage. It said credible oral testimony alone can be sufficient for summoning an accused if it reasonably indicates involvement in the offence.

Referring to the facts of the case, Court noted that the complainant, examined as PW-1, along with two other witnesses, had named Mumtaz and Aabid as being involved in the alleged conspiracy. While there were inconsistencies in their testimonies, Court said those issues were matters for trial and not for rejecting the application outright.

“The testimony, on oath, by 3 witnesses including the complainant no less, in our view, is sufficient in the facts of this case to meet the strong and cogent evidence standard,” the Bench held.

Court ultimately directed that the proposed accused be summoned and proceeded against in accordance with law.

Also Read| Section 319 CrPC does not contemplate hearing accused before issuing summons: SC

Case Title: Mohammad Kaleem Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih 

Date of Judgment: March 17, 2026