The standard for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is based on whether evidence, if unrebutted, supports involvement.

JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

CRM-36636-2019

Application is allowed, as prayed for.

CRR-3143-2019

1. The instant criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by leaned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning private respondents, Kapil, Bhawan and Nanha, as additional accused in case FIR No.431, dated 08.08.2017, under Sections 148, 149, 302, 324 IPC, registered at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak, was dismissed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner, who is both the complainant and an injured eyewitness, that the incident in question occurred in the intervening night of 07/08.08.2017, and that the FIR was lodged without delay at 03:15 AM. In the FIR, the petitioner specifically named the private respondents, Kapil, Bhawan and Nanha along with the already charge-sheeted co-accused, Satpal and Surinder, alleging that while Satpal inflicted multiple blows upon the deceased Manjeet, the private respondents actively restrained the deceased to facilitate the assault. The petitioner was himself injured in the same incident and later appeared as PW10 before the Trial Court, where he reaffirmed the same allegations on oath.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the nature of injuries recorded in the post-mortem report - 15 incised wounds involving vital organs, such as chest, heart, spleen, and lungs - ruled out any possibility of a spontaneous or isolated attack. Learned counsel has emphasized that the role attributed to the private respondents of restraining the deceased was instrumental in the fatal outcome.

4. In support of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Versus State of Punjab , 2023 SCC Online SC 539, wherein it was held that at the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the standard of proof is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' but merely whether the evidence available on record, if unrebutted, discloses the involvement of a person not already arrayed as an accused. Learned counsel has further contended that consistent ocular testimony of PW10- who is both the author of the FIR and a stamped witness-satisfies the threshold laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. It has still further been argued that reliance placed by the learned Trial Court on the results of a polygraph test to discard the testimony of the petitioner was wholly impermissible in law. In this regard, learned counsel has cited the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Selvi and others Versus State of Karnataka , 2010 (7) SCC 263 , wherein it was conclusively held that the results of polygraph, narco analysis, and brain mapping tests are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon even if undertaken voluntarily.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the private respondents, has submitted that no specific overt act or use of weapon has been attributed to the private respondents. Further, the allegations against them are general and repetitive, and merely reiterate the contents of the FIR. It has been still further submitted that no motive has been assigned to the private respondents, and that the incident appears to have occurred at the spur of the moment, suggesting absence of any motive on the part of private respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the private respondents has also referred to certain inconsistencies in the statements made by the complainant during investigation, which, as per him, clearly casts do