SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15896

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J
Anwar Hussain Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P./85/2023



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

The power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused is discretionary and extraordinary; it requires strong, cogent evidence beyond mere probability of complicity, and courts must evaluate the entire material on record, including prior statements, rather than relying solely on trial evidence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Power to add additional accused - Discretionary and extraordinary power - Must be exercised sparingly and only upon strong and cogent evidence - Evidence required is more than mere probability of complicity but short of conviction - Requirement of assessing existing material including previous statements recorded under S. 161 CrPC. (Paras 8, 15, 16)

(B) Appellate Review - Courts are duty-bound to evaluate totality of evidence and material on record - Failure to consider existing exonerating material and relying solely on examination-in-chief of witnesses renders order unsustainable. (Paras 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were named in an FIR but not charge-sheeted due to lack of evidence. During trial, the prosecution applied under S. 319 CrPC to summon the petitioners as accused based on trial depositions, which the trial court allowed. The petitioners challenged this order in revision.

Findings of Court:
The trial court failed to assess the available material on record, including prior statements, while forming its opinion. The depositions were made for the first time before the court and lacked sufficient corroboration to reach the standard required for invoking S. 319 CrPC.

Issues: Whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretionary power under S. 319 CrPC to summon the petitioners as additional accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Invoking S. 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence higher than mere probability of complicity; the court must evaluate all material on record rather than relying solely on trial examination-in-chief.

Result: Revision petition allowed; impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for revision against s. 319 crpc order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments on the standards of evidence for summoning additional accused. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. obligation to consider totality of evidence when summoning accused under s. 319 crpc. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. setting aside the impugned order while preserving future liberty of trial court. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

Judgment & Order(CAV)

(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 may be investigated by visiting the spot and collecting witnesses to provide justice. Dated: 19.07.2012.

Names o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top