The court upheld that a Trial Court may arraign additional accused when there is sufficient evidence indicating their involvement, as per Section 319 CrPC.

O R D E R

Aggrieved by Annexure IV order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Thiruvananthapuram (‘Trial Court’, for short), arraigning the petitioners as the accused Nos. 9 and 10 in S.C.No.576/2015, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’, in short), this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed.

2. The petitioners have stated in the criminal miscellaneous case that, during the examination of PW1 (CW2-victim), out of his personal grudge towards the petitioners, he falsely gave an embellished version that the petitioners had inflicted injuries on him with a blunt object and sword, but the Investigating Officer did not arraign the petitioners as accused in the case. Immediately, the prosecution filed Annexure II application to array the petitioners as accused in the crime, which was allowed by the Trial Court by the impugned Annexure IV order. The Trial Court has failed to comprehend the fact that the Investigating Officer had conducted a comprehensive investigation and filed a full-fledged final report. It was only because no materials were found against the petitioners that they were not implicated as accused in the case. However, unmindful of these crucial aspects, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order, which is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The materials on record reveal that, in the examination-in-chief of CW2, he has specifically testified that the petitioners and six other identifiable persons were at the scene of occurrence, and it was the petitioners who inflicted injuries on him with a blunt object and sword. He has further deposed that he categorically informed CW 18 (Sub-Inspector of Police) and CW 19 (Circle Inspector of Police) regarding the petitioner's presence and involvement in the crime. Nonetheless, CW20 deliberately omitted to arraign the petitioners as accused in the crime.

5. The Trial Court, after carefully analysing the oral testimony of CW2, the materials on record, Section 319 CrPC and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab & others [2014 (1) KHC 170] , Sarjit Singh v. State of Haryana and another, etc. [2021 KHC 6164] and Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana and others [2021 KHC 6387], allowed the application by arraigning the petitioners as accused Nos.9 and 10 in the case.

6. Recently, in Mohammad Kaleem v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2026 KHC OnLine 6185], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after a complete survey of the precedents on Section 319 CrPC, has held as follows:

“8. The Trial Court's reasoning in rejecting the S.319 application, prima facie appears to be largely aligned with the principles laid down by this Court, such as the requirement that evidence must be strong and cogent rather than mere suspicion. Both Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab , ((2014) 3 SCC 92) and Neeraj Kumar v. State of UP , (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2639) emphasize that the power under S.319 CrPC is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. The Court must assess whether the evidence on record, if unrebutted, reasonably indicates the involvement of the proposed accused.

9. At the same time, the Court has highlighted certain limits to the Trial Court's discretion at S.319 CrPC. stage. Hardeep Singh(supra) clarified that the Court need not establish guilt or conduct a detailed credibility assessment at this stage, while Neeraj Kumar (supra) held that pre - trial scrutiny should not resemble a mini trial. The Trial Court, in this regard appears to have misdirected itself. In evaluating minor contradictions between witness statements and plausibility issues such as whether the complai