Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 682

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Anwar Hussain Choudhury, S/o. Late Atowar Rahman Choudhury And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Through The PP, Assam And Anr. – Respondents
Crl.Rev.P./85 of 2023
Decided On : 07-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. M.H. Laskar, Mr. S. Roy, M. Hossain
For the Respondents: PP, Assam, Mr. D.H. Mozumder, Mr F.A. Laskar.

The power to summon additional accused is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. It requires strong and cogent evidence, not merely a prima facie case. Courts must evaluate trial testimony against existing investigation records and corroborative material before summoning additional persons to face trial.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - Nature and scope - Power is extraordinary and discretionary, to be exercised sparingly - Requires strong and cogent evidence, not merely a prima facie case - Court must assess material on record, including previous statements, before invoking such power. (Paras 8, 10, 15, 16)

(B) Evidence - Appreciation of - Trial court must evaluate evidence in light of existing record - Mere oral testimony in examination-in-chief, unsupported by previous statements or other corroborative material, is insufficient to invoke extraordinary powers to summon additional accused. (Paras 13, 14, 17)

Facts of the case:
A criminal revision petition was filed challenging an order summoning additional persons as accused in a trial. These individuals were named in the initial complaint but were excluded from the final police report due to lack of evidence. During the trial, witnesses implicated these individuals for the first time in their examination-in-chief, despite having made no such allegations in their earlier statements to the police.

Findings of Court:
The trial court failed to consider the lack of corroborative evidence and the contradiction between the trial testimony and the earlier statements recorded during the investigation. The evidence presented was insufficient to meet the high threshold required for exercising the extraordinary power to summon additional accused.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in invoking the power to summon additional accused based solely on oral testimony in examination-in-chief, ignoring the absence of such allegations in earlier statements and the police report.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to summon additional accused requires strong and cogent evidence that goes beyond a mere prima facie case. When trial testimony contradicts or is unsupported by the investigation record, the court must exercise caution and refrain from summoning unless there is substantial material to justify such an extraordinary step.

Result: Revision allowed; impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for revision petition against section 319 crpc summons. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. contention regarding the evidentiary standard required to invoke section 319 crpc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. analysis of evidentiary threshold and insufficiency of current evidence for summons. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. requirement to assess entire material on record before exercising extraordinary power. (Para 16 , 17)
5. setting aside the impugned order while preserving future liberty to invoke section 319. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Petition No. 127/05 in Sessions Case No. 45/2014 pending in the Court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, whereby the Ld. Court below treated the petitioners as accused persons in the instant case in exercise of the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and thereby issued impugned summons dated 19.12.2022 to them for their appearance.

3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated the informant of the case, one Humera Begum Barbhuiya, w/o Late Nurul Haque Barbhuiya, lodged an FIR on 19.07.2012 before the Officer-in-Charge, Hailakandi Police Station, which is reproduced below:

To,

The Officer In-Charge

Hailakandi Police Station.

Sub: Prayer for FIR

Informant- Humera Begum Barbhuiya, W/O Late Nurul Hoque Barbhuiya, Vill-Bashdhar Part-I, P.S & Dist- Hailakandi.

Sir,

Humble submission is that—

Yesterday, i.e., 18.07.2012 at about 8.30 A.M., the accused persons grouped together, illegally trespassed into the agricultural land of the informant side, and started ploughing thereon. The accused persons cut down the fruit- bearing trees of the informant side and thereafter illegally trespassed into the homestead of the informant side and started throwing stones and assaulting the husband of the informant and his brothers and nephews. The accused were armed with weapons like Dao, sticks, Lenza, and Ballam. The accused Ikbal Amin Choudhury made an assault on the right side of the chest of the informant's husband, namely Nurul Hoque Choudhury, with the Lenza in his hands; the accused Mustak Ahmed Choudhury made a severe assault with a heavy weapon on the left shoulder of the said Nurul; and Tunu Miya assaulted the head of the said Nurul with a stick, as a result of which, Nurul Hoque Barbhuiya died on the spot. Accused Monir Uddin Choudhury assaulted the informant's brother-in-law, Azir Uddin Barbhuiya, on the right side of his stomach with the Lenza in his hands; the accused Imran Hussain Laskar fired a shot at the face of the said Azir with his gun; and the accused Mayazul Hoque Laskar made various assaults on the body of the said Azir with the Dao in his hands, as a result of which, Azir Uddin died on the spot. When the other brothers and nephews of the informant's husband tried to prevent the accused from such acts, the accused persons assaulted them severely with deadly weapons, as a result of which, Abdul Sattar, Abdul Mannan, Moynul Hoque, Tuku Miya @ Mizanur Rahman, Luku Miya, Mahmodur Rahman, Amzad Hussain, Tafazzul Ali, Abu Salekh, and small children and other members of the family sustained serious injuries. With the help of the police, some of them were taken to S.K. Roy Civil Hospital, Hailakandi, and the remaining seriously injured persons were referred to Silchar Medical College & Hospital in very critical condition. Although both the deceased persons informed the Hailakandi police authority to save their lives from the hands of the accused, they could not be saved. Thereafter, the police reached the spot and took the dead bodies to S.K. Roy Hospital, Hailakandi, for postmortem. The names of the witnesses will be disclosed during investigation.

It is prayed that the aforesaid matter ma