Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
Rukminbai Vishnu Karad – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024 With Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 2025
Decided On : 20-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Advocate h/f. Ms. Priyanka Ramesh
Deshpande Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A. S. Shinde, APP.,Mr. H. D. Deshmukh, Advocate

Section 319 CrPC invocation demands strong cogent evidence higher than prima facie, where unrebutted it would lead to conviction; initial FIR and eyewitness omissions undermine later testimony despite examination-in-chief.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Addition of accused - Power discretionary, extraordinary, exercised sparingly on strong cogent evidence - Degree of satisfaction higher than prima facie case at framing charge; test is whether evidence if unrebutted would lead to conviction - Omission of names in FIR, initial witness statements including injured eyewitnesses, despite later naming in statement under Section 164 and examination-in-chief, indicates improvement and lacks credibility - Trial Court erred in directing addition without requisite satisfaction, vitiating order. (Paras 9,10,19,20,24,25,27,29)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Application need not await cross-examination, but Court must assess evidence quality even at examination-in-chief stage against higher standard; discrepancies like material omissions undermine satisfaction. (Paras 22,27)

(C) Evidence - Intrinsic worth and probability yardstick to be applied; fanciful conjectures avoided - Initial silence of complainant and injured witnesses on assailants carries greater weight than later versions. (Paras 6,28)

Facts of the case:
Assault incident on specified date with FIR naming certain assailants; later application by complainant to add five more persons partly allowed by trial court adding three as direct assailants, rejecting two as conspirators; writ petitions challenging order - one by added accused to quash, other by complainant for rejected additions.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order set aside insofar as addition of three accused quashed; rejection of two conspirators upheld - no strong evidence for any addition meeting Section 319 threshold.

Issues: Whether trial court applied correct degree of satisfaction under Section 319; effect of omissions in FIR and eyewitness statements on later testimony; need to await cross-examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Satisfaction under Section 319 requires strong cogent evidence beyond probability, tested for potential conviction if unrebutted; glaring omissions in initial records, especially by injured eyewitnesses, falsify subsequent claims attributing roles, rendering trial court satisfaction perverse. Result : Writ by proposed accused allowed, their addition quashed; writ by complainant dismissed, rejection of conspirators maintained.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions challenge section 319 addition order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. delayed naming and eyewitness omissions preclude addition. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. complainant statements implicate assailants and conspirators. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. section 319 requires higher satisfaction than prima facie case. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. fir and witness omissions vitiate trial court satisfaction. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. quash addition of three accused; uphold two rejections. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024 is filed by the applicants – Rukminbai Vishnu Karad, Pallavi Bharat Karad and Vijay Shahaji Gambhire, thereby challenging the order dated 23.09.2024 passed below Exhibit 50 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2021 by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Latur, whereby the present applicants were directed to be added as accused in the said crime and to be tried together with the charge-sheeted accused.

3. Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 2025 is filed by the complainant – Vinayak Shripati Karad, thereby challenging the very same order dated 23.09.2024 passed below Exhibit 50 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2021, whereby the application dated 30.08.2023 filed by him seeking addition of five accused persons came to be partly allowed by directing addition of accused namely Rukminbai Vishnu Karad, Pallavi Bharat Karad and Vijay Shahaji Gambhire and rejecting the prayer insofar as addition of Vishwanath Dadarao Karad and Ramesh Kashinath Karad.

4. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 23.09.2024, they are heard and decided together by this common order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Advocate h/f. Ms. Priyanka Ramesh Deshpande, Advocate, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024, vehemently submits that the incident occurred on 01.05.2020 and the FIR came to be lodged on 03.05.2020. It is further submitted that a perusal of the FIR would show that three (03) incidents are mentioned, all of which allegedly took place on the date of the incident, i.e. 01.05.2020. The first incident is stated to have occurred at about 05:00 p.m., the second incident allegedly at about 05:30 p.m., and the third incident allegedly at about 08:30 p.m. on the same date. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the First Information Report itself would show that, right from the beginning and from the first alleged incident mentioned therein, only seven (07) accused persons, who are charge-sheeted, were named as assailants who had allegedly assaulted the complainant / respondent No. 2 and the other injured witnesses and not the applicants. The complainant, Vinayak Shripati Karad, was undergoing medical treatment after the alleged assault and his statement was recorded in the presence of a Medical Officer, who had certified his fitness. The version put forth by the complainant later on that the present applicants were also involved in the assault stands falsified by the fact that no complaint was made by the complainant at the relevant time regarding non-inclusion of the applicants as accused by the police authorities. The first such complaint was made by the complainant only on 22.06.2020 before the Superintendent of Police, Latur, alleging non-inclusion of the names of the present applicants as accused, which, according to the learned counsel, was with an intention to create a basis to wreak vengeance against all the family members of the main accused. It is further submitted that the statement of the complainant under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded after about one and a half months of the incident, i.e. on 26.06.2020, and for the first time, the names of the present ap