Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 251
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _______ OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No 11085 of 2023 )
MOHAMMAD KALEEM ... APPELLANT(S)
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _______ OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No 11510 of 2023)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
1
2. The Appellant herein is the complainant in the First Information Report dated
nd
22 August 2017 registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District
2
Muzaffarnagar under Sections 307, 302 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Signature Not Verified
PW-1 in subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. He takes exception to the Trial
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN D
Date: 2026.03.17
17:04:57 IST
Reason:
1
FIR
2
IPC
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 1 of 16
3 4
Court and High Court both refusing to allow his application to summon additional
5
accused preferred under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The case pertains to the alleged killing of one Ammar and the people who
apparently, came together to make it happen. The FIR read thus:
“Sir, it is submitted that Gulshanawwar, Jamshed, Naushad,S/O
Ishrat are top criminals of P.S Bhopa, who are lying in jail in
connection with murder and other cases. Previously,they have shot
at my brother Khalid @ Bhura and on the next day they have shot
at my nephew Taslim have committed his murder. Mohammad
Ammar S/o. Nurulla of our village was pleading in this case.
Today, hearing was to be conducted in the court of S.C.J.M-3 on
the application of my nephew. I was going to the court to plead in
aforesaid case with Mohammad Ammar by scooter at around
10:30 A.M and after travelling some distance on reaching
Aryapuri Galli from Ansari Road, Dilshad S/o Ishrat,Mumtaz S/o
Azmat R/o Sikri,Abid S/o Nushrat R/o Rudkali accompanied by one
more accomplice, who I will recognize by his face, came over there
from behind by motorcycle and with an intention to kill, they have
fired shots at Ammar. Ikbal S/o Sagir and I have witnessed this
incident. We have immediately taken Ammar by rickshaw to the
government Hospital, where the doctors have declared him
brought dead. Rajendra S/o Rajpal, Mausam S/o. Asghar R/o Sikri
are involved in this conspiracy, who have plotted conspiracy on the
behest of Gulshanawwar, Jamshed, Naushad and have committed
murder of Ammar…”
4. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against certain
persons. In the list of witnesses presented by the two prosecution witnesses, who
according to the complainant were necessary for the establishment of the case
against the accused Dilshad and others, were not listed. An application was made to
have the said people be examined as witnesses before the Trial Court which came to
3
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 ,Muzzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial 414 of 2018
4
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. · 1687 of 2020
5
CrPC
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 2 of 16
th
be rejected by Order dated 17 March 2021. The same was set aside by the High
6
Court and the said witnesses namely Khalil and Tazeem were examined as PW-6
and PW-7 respectively. It appears that on the basis on his own statement under
Section 161 CrPC and the testimony of PW-6 and PW-7, the complainant wished to
have two additional persons, namely Rajendra and Mausam summoned as accused
persons under the power granted to the Court under Section 319, CrPC.
th
5. The Trial Court disposed of the application by order dated 30 November
2011, rejecting the same. A perusal thereof reveals that people already standing trial
before the Court filed objections to having the two above named persons as co-
accused. The Court considered the said objections along with the evidence as led by
PW-1, PW-6 and PW-7. The Court first noted that the allegation of conspiracy was
based primarily on the statements of the complainant (PW-1) and the witnesses PW-
6 Khalil and PW-7 Tazim. However, their accounts were materially inconsistent.
While the complainant stated that Rajendra and Mausam had met three accused
persons in jail, namely Gulshanawwar, Naushad and Jamshed, PW-6 stated that the
meeting was with Gulshanawwar and Naushad who mentioned about a discussion
with Jamshed. PW-7, on the other hand, stated that the meeting was only with
Gulshanawwar. These inconsistencies created serious doubt regarding the alleged
meeting and the existence of any conspiracy. The Court further observed that the
witnesses did not specify any exact date or time of the alleged meeting and merely
stated that it occurred about fifteen days before the incident. Ordinarily, the entry
and exit of visitors in jail premises is recorded in official registers, yet the witnesses
did not refer to any such record. This omission weakened the credibility of the claim
that the meeting had in fact taken place. The investigation record also undermined
the prosecution version. The case diary indicated that the accused Jamshed had
6
Application U/S 482 No.- 9654 Of 2021
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 3 of 16
earlier been transferred from the local jail to Saharanpur Jail and thereafter to
Mirzapur Jail, following a quarrel among inmates. As a result, he was not present in
the local jail at the relevant time. This circumstance cast further doubt on the
allegation that Rajendra and Mausam had met him there shortly before the incident.
Still further, it was found the circumstances in which PW-6 and PW-7
allegedly overheard the conversation to be doubtful. According to their own
statements, they heard the discussion while passing near the meeting place while
returning home. However, their houses were situated between Rajwaha and the
alleged meeting place, and there was no settlement beyond that point. In such
circumstances the Court found it unlikely that they would have taken that route. The
Court also noted that despite allegedly hearing about a plan to murder Ammar, the
witnesses did not inform the deceased but reported the matter only to the
complainant, who admittedly had prior enmity with the accused persons. The Court
then examined the testimony of the complainant and found significant contradictions
between his FIR and his statement before the Court. In the FIR he stated that four
assailants arrived on two motorcycles and opened fire. During his testimony he
introduced a new version stating that three additional persons had also arrived on
another motorcycle. This fact had not been mentioned in the written report or in his
earlier police statement. The allegation of a prior conspiracy was also absent from
the FIR. Further inconsistencies were noted regarding the circumstances in which
the injured Ammar was taken to the hospital. The complainant stated that he had
taken the deceased to the hospital where he was declared dead. However, the general
diary entry recorded that Ammar was brought to the hospital in an injured condition
and died later, and that he had been brought there by a rickshaw puller named Farid
Ahmad. These contradictions raised doubts about the reliability of the complainant’s
account. The Court also considered the physical circumstances of the incident. The
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 4 of 16
complainant claimed that he was seated behind the deceased on a scooter when the
assailants fired multiple shots. The post-mortem report showed that the deceased
sustained five gunshot injuries. Despite being in such close proximity during the
attack, the complainant did not suffer any injury, even though he admitted that the
accused persons had prior enmity with him. The Court regarded this circumstance
as suspicious. The Court also found the alleged motive to be weak. The prosecution
claimed that Ammar was targeted because he had been pleading strongly in another
murder case involving the accused persons. However, the complainant admitted that
Ammar was not a witness of fact in that case and had only been a witness for the
seizure of blood-stained soil. The deceased had never testified against the accused
persons. In fact, it was the complainant who had deposed against them.
In light of these factors, the Court held that the evidence of the complainant
was inconsistent with the FIR and the documentary record, and that the statements
of PW-6 and PW-7 were mutually contradictory and unreliable. The Court,
therefore, concluded that the evidence did not reach the standard required for
summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC and that no sufficient
ground existed to summon Rajendra and Mausam to face trial.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record.
The central question is the propriety of the exercise of power by the Trial Court
under Section 319 Cr.PC and the justifiability of the imprimatur granted thereto by
the Court below. Before proceeding to the merits of the matter, it is important to
understand the scales on which the question of propriety will be adjudged. Courts
generally assess evidence at three distinct levels, depending on the stage of
proceedings and the nature of the relief prayed for. The lowest threshold, or prima
facie standard, requires only a connection to proceed with formal charges. The
middle threshold, which is often described as strong and cogent , applies when
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 5 of 16
Courts consider summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC; the
evidence must be reliable and reasonably persuasive, but proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not required. The highest threshold demands proof beyond reasonable
doubt, the standard necessary for conviction, where the Court must be fully satisfied
of the guilt of the accused. It is best illustrated through a hypothetical situation-
At night, a high-end jewelry store is robbed. Police investigation seizes CCTV
footage showing a masked person fleeing on a motorcycle, statements from two
eyewitnesses, and phone records linking certain suspects to the vicinity of the store
at the time of the incident.
At the first stage, the investigating officer submits a charge-sheet against
Person ‘A’. The Magistrate reviews the evidence, including the CCTV footage,
witness statements, and other investigative material. Based on this, the Magistrate
finds that there is sufficient ground to believe that ‘A’ may have committed the offence
and frames charges. This stage requires evidence indicating involvement beyond
mere suspicion, but it does not demand full proof or trial-level examination thereof.
During the trial of ‘A’, evidence emerges suggesting that Persons ‘B’ and ‘C’
may also have been involved in planning or executing the robbery. A witness reports
seeing ‘B’ near the scene discussing the plan with ‘A’, while phone records and
CCTV footage show interactions between ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’. The Court would examine
whether this evidence is strong and cogent enough to summon ‘B’ and ‘C’ as
additional accused under Section 319. Minor contradictions in witness accounts or
timing are noted, but they do not automatically negate the overall reliability of the
evidence. At this stage, the court is not determining guilt, only assessing whether a
reasonable inference of involvement exists.
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 6 of 16
As the trial continues, forensic evidence reveals fingerprints of ‘B’ on the
display case and DNA of ‘C’ on a glove left at the scene. Eyewitnesses place ‘B’ and
‘C’ at the time of the robbery, and phone messages show coordination among all the
three. Cross-examination fails to provide credible alibis. Cumulative assessment of
the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt regarding the participation of ‘A’, ‘B’, and
‘C’, and the Court can convict all three. This represents the highest threshold, where
minor inconsistencies are immaterial because the totality of the evidence
conclusively establishes guilt.
7. The standard of judicial review having been appreciated as above, we turn
back to the instant facts. The discussion made by the Trial Court is reproduced
below, since the emphasis is on contradictions, apparently minor or even major, it is
imperative, at the cost of brevity, to appreciate the consideration given thereto:
“ It is also pertinent to mention here that application in question was
presented on the basis of sufficiency of evidence as to plotting of
conspiracy by proposed accused persons namely Rajendra and
Mausam on the behest of accused persons already detained in the
Jail namely Gulshanawwar, Jamshedvand Naushad on the basis of
statements of PW- 6Khalil and PW- 7 Tazim recorded before the
Court. In this case, this statement made by complainant Mohammad
Kalim (PW- 1) before the Court during his examination-in-chief is
important that, "15 days before this incident, Tazim and Khalil of
my Village have told me that they have heard Rajendra and
Mausam discussing with Dilshad, Mumtaz and Aabid that when
they have gone to meet Gulshanawwar, Naushad, Jamshed in the
Jail at that time they have sent the name back saying that
Mohammad Ammar is pleading much in the case, so remove him
from theway and they have also said that while taking our names
tell them to do this act and they have also said that this act is to be
committed only at Muzaffar Nagar since they will not find witnesses
over there".
In this way, as per the statement of PW- 1, above both witnesses
PW- 6 and PW- 7 have stated about accused persons namely
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 7 of 16
Dilshad, Mumtaz as named in F.I.R of Ex. A-1 making with 3:
accused persons namely Gulshanawwar, Naushad and said in the
Jail, who have given them message of committing murder of
deceased Ammar and having discussion in this regard. It is evident
that from among all 3 accused persons named in the F.I.R of Ex. A-
1 namely Dilshad, Mumtaz and Aabid, the Police has only found
accused Dilshad to be involved in this incident, whereas, no
evidence was found against other 2 accused persons. In this
situation, it is expedient to analyze the statements made by
complainant (PW- 1) and PW- 6 and PW- 7 on aforesaid relevant
point. In this regard, on the one hand complainant (PW- 1) has
stated about above two proposed persons meeting above 3 accused
persons in the Jail, whereas, PW- 6 Khalil Ahmad has stated in his
examination -in -chief that Mausam and Rajendra were telling
Mumtaz, Aabid, Dilshad that when we have gone to meet
Gulshanawwar and Naushad in the Jail at that time they have said
that they have had discussion with Jamshed that Ammar is pleading
a lot. Go and tell Dilshad, Mumtaz and Aabid that Ammar Pradhan
is to be killed at Muzaffar Nagar and not in Village Sikri, so that
they may not find any evidence in Muzaffar Nagar. On aforesaid
point, witness PW- 7 Tazim has stated in his examination-in-chief
that Rajendra and Mausam have told that today we have gone to
meet Gulshanawwar in the Jail. Gulshanawwar told us that Ammar
Pradhan is pleading a lot in this case, he needs to be removed from
the way and he has had discussion in this regard with Jamshed,
Dilshad, Naushad and it was also decided that he was not to be
killed in the Village, rather, in the town. In addition, above both
witnesses PW- 6 and PW- 7 have also stated that after hearing
aforesaid discussion they have come and narrated it over to their
uncle Kalim on the same day. On the point of reaching at the so-
called place of meeting, PW- 7 has stated that murder of Ammar
Pradhan was committed on22/8/2017. Nearly 15 days before this
incident he has gone to know the wellbeing of mother-in-law of his
uncle Bhura @ Khalid. She has sustained fractures in her hip bone.
They were sitting over there and while he was sitting even Khalil
has come. They have departed for their houses from there at around
7-7:15 p.m. Meeting place of Gulshanawwar was situated on the
way and when they reached near to the meeting place at that time
they have heard the name of Ammar Pradhan, on which they have
stood over there near the jungle and at that time they have heard
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 8 of 16
the fact as to discussion (conspiracy).Similarly, PW- 6 has also
stated that murder of deceased Ammar was committed on 22/8/17.
15 days before aforesaid incident he has gone to the house of his
relative. The daughter of his sister-in law was married with
Dilshad. Mother of Dilshad has sustained fractures. He has gone
over there to know the well being of her. He has reached at the
house of Dilshad at around 6-X: 30 a.m., where he has met with
Tajim and he has stayed over there for around one hour and he also
has had tea etc. Thereafter, Tazim and he have departed from there.
In this way, it is evident from the statements of above 3 witnesses
that on the one hand complainant PW- 1 states about meeting
between the proposed persons and 3 accused persons detained in
the Jail persons meeting only with 2 accused persons detained in
the Jail namely Gulshanawwar and Naushad, who have stated to
have had discussion with Jamshed, whereas, PW- 7 states about
meeting only with one accused detained in the Jail named
Gulshanawwar, who has given message to aforesaid both proposed
persons. In addition, he also said that he has had discussion with
all namely Jamshed, Dilshad and Naushad. It is pertinent to
mention here that no exact date and time of so-called meeting by
the proposed both persons with the persons detained in Jail is
mentioned, rather, only this much was stated that aforesaid given
to place nearly 15 days before the incident, whereas, entry and exit
regarding any person in the Jail is maintained in the register, in
respect of which, aforesaid witnesses are silent. Itis evident that all
3 accused persons namely Gulshanawwar, Naushad and Jamshed
concerning criminal conspiracy were detained in the Jail at the time
of incident. Investigating Officer has arraigned while they were
detained in the Jail and has recorded statements of above 3 accused
persons U /s. 161 of Cr.P.C. with the prior permission of the Court
and then only charges were invoked against them. In this regard, it
would be appropriate to perused the evidences gathered by the
investigating Officer, in respect of which, CD number 17 of the case
diary is important, which was prepared by the investigating Officer
on 18 / 9 / 2017, which bears seeking aforesaid permission of the
Court for recording statement is mentioned and it is also evident
here that after receiving permission from the Court, the
investigating Officer has has paid visit to District Jail, Muzaffar
Nagar to record the statements of accused persons namely Dilshad,
Gulshanawwar and Naushad under judicial custody detained in the
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 9 of 16
Jail and while sitting in the Office of Dy. Jailer, he has separately
recorded statements of above accused persons. According to
aforesaid statements, this fact has appeared 1n the statement of
accused a mutual quarrel has broken out between the prisoners
inside the Jail. In view of aforesaid quarrel, accused Jamshed was
firstly sent to Saharanpur Jail and thereafter he was sent to
Mirzapur Jail, that is, on the date of his statement, that is, on 18/ 9
/ 20 17,accused Jamshed not being detained in local Jail was rather
detained in Mirzapur Jail, and in this regard, Investigating Officer
has referred to the fact in CD that accused persons were firstly sent
to Saharanpur Jail and then to Mirzapur Jail nearly 1 year before
statement was recorded, whereas, it has been alleged that meeting
took place in the jail nearly 15 days before the incident took place
on 22.8.2017, of which no exact date or time is mentioned and even
the statement of complainant and other two witnesses on aforesaid
point of meeting is not alike. PW -6 and PW- 7, both of them in their
statements have stated about the meeting place of Gulshanawwar
lying on the way while they were returning back to their houses,
from where they were passing by naturally, but witness
Gulshanawwar is slightly away from "Rajwahe". Their ancestral
houses are situated in between Rajwahe and the place of meeting
and after Rajwaha there is no settlement, i.e. when no settlement is
present on that side then it is not natural for above both witnesses
to go from that side. Besides this, it is pertinent to mention here that
according to PW-6 and PW-7, after above both witnesses (PW- and
PW-7) have received the message in the jail from accused persons
namely Gulshanawwar, Naushad and Jamshed, first of all, they
were expected to inform the deceased, but they have told this fact
only to the complainant Kalim, who is having enmity with the
accused persons, whereas, PW-6 hailed from Seikh Community and
brother of deceased named Haji Hafiz used to stay in Village
Ummed, Sikri, but he has not informed him about it.
It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has claimed himself
to be an eye-witness, on which basis he has named accused persons
in the F.I.R, but evidences gathered during the course of
investigation. In this situation, even the evidence of complainant
(PW-1) is subject to scrutiny. In the\F .I. R of Ex. P-1, complainant
has stated about the deceased riding scooter and he himself was
sitting as pillion and before reaching at the place of incident, three
known and one unknown persons came over there by two
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 10 of 16
motorcycles, who have fired shots at scooter rider Ammar.
Thereafter, injured Ammar was taken by the complainant and one
more witness Iqbal to the District Hospital, where he was declared
dead, but while appearing before the Court as PW- 1, he has
admitted that, "it is true that besides the accused persons named in
the F.I.R, I have not mentioned the names of 3 persons coming by
another motorcycle to the place of incident in my written report. It
is true that for the 1st time I have stated before the Court about 3
unknown persons coming by 1 more motorcycle to the place of
incident. I have not told aforesaid fact over to the SHO in my Police
statement. persons had enmity with him and there were for accused
persons who have fired shots at the place of incident and there were
a total of 7 accused persons present at the place of incident. He has
got recorded the names of a total of 4 accused persons in the report.
He has not got mentioned the fact as to a total of 7 accused persons
in the report. Above witness PW- 1 has further stated that at the
time of murder of Ammar the accused persons namely Jamshed,
Gulshanawwar and Naushad were detained in Jail. All 3 of them
were detained in Jail in connection with murder case of Tasleem.
In his report, he has not got this fact mentioned that, "15 days before
this incident, Tazim and Khalil have told me that they have heard
Rajendra, Mausam discussing with Dilshad, Mumtaz, Aabid that
both of them have gone to meet Gulshanawwar, Naushad, Jamshed
in the Jail, who have sent them while saying that Mohammad
Ammar is pleading a lot in the cases, so remove him from the way
and they have also said Nagar since he would not find witnesses
over there".PW- 1 has admitted this fact that accused Jamshed was
in Mirzapur Jail on the date of incident and he does not know that
for how long Jam shed has been in the Jail before this incident.
Complainant has clearly mentioned in the F.I.R that they have
brought Ammar by rickshaw to the Hospital, where the doctors have
declared him as dead, that is, in the aforesaid report, complainant
has mentioned that deceased was declared as dead as soon as they
have reached Hospital, whereas, as PW- 1, though, he has denied
from this fact that a rickshaw puller named Farid has taken the
Ammar in dead condition to the Hospital and rickshaw puller has
admitted him in dead condition in District Iqbal has not met with
the Doctor in his presence and treatment of Ammar continued for
around 30-45 minutes. This fact is mentioned in G D number
37dated 22/08/2017 of P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 11 of 16
available on record that ward boy Akash having appeared at Police
Station from District Hospital Muzaffar Nagar has filed a memo
that Mohammad Ammar was brought to the emergency ward in
injured condition at 10:20 a.m. At 11:25 AM, he has died. Through
Farid Ahmad son of Rashid Ahmad Laddawala Muzaffar Nagar,
Mobile Phone No. 8869090310. In this way, on the point of time of
death of deceased, there are clear and substantial Hospital, but he
has definitely stated that Iqbal and he having lifted up Ammar have
taken him to the doctors, but he did not meet with the Doctor, nor
has Iqbal has not met with the Doctor in his presence and treatment
of Ammar continued for around 30-45 minutes. This fact is
mentioned in G D number 37 dated 22/08/2017 of P.S. Kotwali
Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar available on record that ward boy Akash
having appeared at Police Station from District Hospital Muzaffar
Nagar has filed a memo that Mohammad Ammar was brought to
the emergency ward in injured condition at 10:20 a.m. At 11:25
AM, he has died. Through Farid Ahmad son of Rashid Ahmad
Laddawala Muzaffar Nagar, Mobile Phone No. 8869090310. In this
way, on the point of time of death of deceased, there are clear and
substantial contradictions in the statement of complainant and facts
mentioned in the report. It is evident from the statement of
complainant (PW- 1) that he has admitted his enmity with the
accused persons of this case. Above witness PW- 1 has clearly
stated that Jamshed, Gulshanawwar and Naushad, all 3 of them
were detained in Jail in connection with murder case of Tasleem
and even in the aforesaid case shot was fired at him with an
intention to kill him, but he has escaped by whisker and in this case
he is eyewitness and accused persons having come from behind
have prevented his way by motorcycle and suddenly fired at him
with an intention to kill him. He has not sustained any firearm injury
in the aforesaid incident, nor has she sustained any other injury,
rather, he has escaped by whisker. He is eyewitness to the incident
of half murder case (Section 307 of IPC) that has happened with his
brother Bhura and he is also the informant. Shots were fired at him
in the incident that has happened with Bhura with an intention to
kill him, but he has escaped by whiskers and he has not sustained
any injury. In all aforesaid 3 incidents, neither has he sustained any
injury from truncheons-mistakes, nor has he sustained any firearm
injury. It is expedient to mention here that complainant has stated
to be riding as they pillion behind the deceased on the during the
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 12 of 16
course of his statement that assailants have overtaken his scooter
from among whom 4 of the assailants have started firing, in which
incident it was the deceased who has sustained all the gunshot
injury and complainant was riding as a pillion has not sustained
any kind of injury, whereas, in the post-mortem report of deceased,
3 gunshot injuries were shown on the back, whereas, two gunshot
injuries were shown in the front, which is clearly in contradiction
to the facts mentioned in the aforesaid written report of
complainant and his statement recorded on oath. In his F.I.R, the
complainant has stated about 4 assailants coming to the place of
incident by 2 Nos. of motorcycles, whereas, in his statements, he
has also stated the presence of 3 other persons coming by one
motorcycle and while aforesaid 4 assailants were firing shots and
complainant has also stated Besides this, presence of another
witness PW- 2 Iqbal was also stated and he was also stated to be an
eyewitness, who along with the complainant has allegedly taken the
deceased to Hospital, whereas, no such kind of documentary
evidences available on record. Complainant has stated about above
witness Iqbal to have reached at the site by motorcycle alongwith
him, reason whereof as per the complainant is that complainant did
not know how to ride motorcycle, for this reason he has brought
him along and on this point, on page number 21 of his evidence, he
has stated that he does not remember that whether he has got this
fact mentioned in his report that Iqbal Sf o. Sagir Hasan was
following him on motorcycle from behind or not. On seeing the
report, this witness has stated that this fact is not mentioned in the
report. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has stated
that the main objective of accused persons, who have been detained
in Jail, was the deceased pleading in the case in which PW- 1 has
also admitted in his evidence that in the aforesaid murder case of
Tasleem, deceased Ammar was the witness for seizure of blood
stained soil from the place of incident and in an incident that has
happened earlier in which his brother Bhura has sustained firearm
injury, Ammar was not a witness and deceased Ammar was also not
a witness in the abduction case of his brother Tazim. In addition, he
has further stated that deceased Ammar has never deposed against
accused persons, rather, he has deposed. He does not know that
whether Ammar has presented affidavit while pleading against
accused persons or not. It is evident from aforesaid the statement of
PW- 1 that deceased Ammar was not a witness of fact in the murder
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 13 of 16
case of Tasleem in which accused persons were detained in Jail,
rather, he was just a witness for seizure of blood stained soil and
deceased has never deposed against them, rather, it was the
complainant who has deposed. It is the plaintiff who has admitted
his enmity with the aforesaid 3 cases of attack, he has escaped by
whisker and he has been eyewitnesses as well as informant in
aforesaid entire cases. Even in the instant case, he has stated about
riding on pillion behind deceased at the time of incident and 4 Nos.
of assailants firing shots at the deceased, as a result of which 3
gunshot injuries were sustained on the back and 2 Nos. of gunshot
injuries were sustained in front, but despite of it, complainant has
not sustained any kind of injury, whereas, accused persons had
enmity with the complainant. Under these circumstances, statement
of complainant itself lies within the periphery of reasonable
suspicion. In this way, evidence of complainant is in clear
contradiction on substantial points from his F.I.R and evidences of
PW- 6 and PW- 7 are mutually contradictory and are in
contradiction with the evidences of the plaintiff on substantial
points.”
8. The Trial Court’s reasoning in rejecting the Section 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
7
suspicion. Both Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Neeraj Kumar v. State of
8
UP emphasize that the power under Section 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 Section 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
7
(2014) 3 SCC 92
8
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2639
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 14 of 16
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 complainant could have avoided injury, effectively applied a stricter
standard than necessary.
10. Another instance is that higher than necessary standard being applied is
reflected where the Court relied on the absence of jail records or highlighted minor
discrepancies in hospital admission or FIR details. While these points raise valid
questions about reliability, they are not points that can be gone into threadbare at this
stage. Further, we find the Trial Court to have erred in taking a fragmented approach
while appreciating evidence. The Trial Court treated each inconsistency in isolation
rather than assessing the cumulative weight of all testimonies and circumstances.
Similarly, reliance on documentary corroboration is not required; oral evidence
alone, if credible, may suffice. The Court’s emphasis on the lack of jail records and
the physical plausibility of witness accounts could be seen as exceeding the threshold
scrutiny expected at this stage. The Court overstepped the intended scope of pre-trial
scrutiny, overemphasized minor inconsistencies, and did not fully consider the
cumulative force of the evidence. The law consistently balances caution against
undue summoning with the need to ensure that potentially implicated individuals are
brought to trial when the record, taken as a whole, reasonably supports it.
11. Apart from the point of standard of review, it is also noticed that the proposed
additional accused, namely Mumtaz and Aabid, have been named as persons
involved in the case by way of a larger conspiracy or otherwise, by PW-1, as noticed
by the trial court itself and also PWs 6 & 7. It is a separate matter that, as found by
the Trial Court, there are inconsistencies in the overall testimonies of these witnesses
but, that is a matter of trial and not within the Court’s scope at the time of considering
an application under section 319 CrPC. The testimony, on oath, by 3 witnesses,
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 15 of 16
including the complainant no less, in our view, is sufficient in the facts of this case
to meet the strong and cogent evidence standard.
12. In view of the above discussion, the judgments of the Courts below with
particulars as described in paragraph 1, stand set aside. The persons who sought to
be produced as additional accused are ordered to be produced as such, and proceeded
with, in accordance with law. These appeals are accordingly allowed. Let a copy of
this order be sent to the Trial Court for necessary action, through the Registrar
General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
…………………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………………………………………………J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
New Delhi
March 17, 2026
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 16 of 16
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _______ OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No 11085 of 2023 )
MOHAMMAD KALEEM ... APPELLANT(S)
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _______ OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No 11510 of 2023)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
1
2. The Appellant herein is the complainant in the First Information Report dated
nd
22 August 2017 registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District
2
Muzaffarnagar under Sections 307, 302 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Signature Not Verified
PW-1 in subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. He takes exception to the Trial
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN D
Date: 2026.03.17
17:04:57 IST
Reason:
1
FIR
2
IPC
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 1 of 16
3 4
Court and High Court both refusing to allow his application to summon additional
5
accused preferred under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The case pertains to the alleged killing of one Ammar and the people who
apparently, came together to make it happen. The FIR read thus:
“Sir, it is submitted that Gulshanawwar, Jamshed, Naushad,S/O
Ishrat are top criminals of P.S Bhopa, who are lying in jail in
connection with murder and other cases. Previously,they have shot
at my brother Khalid @ Bhura and on the next day they have shot
at my nephew Taslim have committed his murder. Mohammad
Ammar S/o. Nurulla of our village was pleading in this case.
Today, hearing was to be conducted in the court of S.C.J.M-3 on
the application of my nephew. I was going to the court to plead in
aforesaid case with Mohammad Ammar by scooter at around
10:30 A.M and after travelling some distance on reaching
Aryapuri Galli from Ansari Road, Dilshad S/o Ishrat,Mumtaz S/o
Azmat R/o Sikri,Abid S/o Nushrat R/o Rudkali accompanied by one
more accomplice, who I will recognize by his face, came over there
from behind by motorcycle and with an intention to kill, they have
fired shots at Ammar. Ikbal S/o Sagir and I have witnessed this
incident. We have immediately taken Ammar by rickshaw to the
government Hospital, where the doctors have declared him
brought dead. Rajendra S/o Rajpal, Mausam S/o. Asghar R/o Sikri
are involved in this conspiracy, who have plotted conspiracy on the
behest of Gulshanawwar, Jamshed, Naushad and have committed
murder of Ammar…”
4. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against certain
persons. In the list of witnesses presented by the two prosecution witnesses, who
according to the complainant were necessary for the establishment of the case
against the accused Dilshad and others, were not listed. An application was made to
have the said people be examined as witnesses before the Trial Court which came to
3
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 ,Muzzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial 414 of 2018
4
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. · 1687 of 2020
5
CrPC
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 2 of 16
th
be rejected by Order dated 17 March 2021. The same was set aside by the High
6
Court and the said witnesses namely Khalil and Tazeem were examined as PW-6
and PW-7 respectively. It appears that on the basis on his own statement under
Section 161 CrPC and the testimony of PW-6 and PW-7, the complainant wished to
have two additional persons, namely Rajendra and Mausam summoned as accused
persons under the power granted to the Court under Section 319, CrPC.
th
5. The Trial Court disposed of the application by order dated 30 November
2011, rejecting the same. A perusal thereof reveals that people already standing trial
before the Court filed objections to having the two above named persons as co-
accused. The Court considered the said objections along with the evidence as led by
PW-1, PW-6 and PW-7. The Court first noted that the allegation of conspiracy was
based primarily on the statements of the complainant (PW-1) and the witnesses PW-
6 Khalil and PW-7 Tazim. However, their accounts were materially inconsistent.
While the complainant stated that Rajendra and Mausam had met three accused
persons in jail, namely Gulshanawwar, Naushad and Jamshed, PW-6 stated that the
meeting was with Gulshanawwar and Naushad who mentioned about a discussion
with Jamshed. PW-7, on the other hand, stated that the meeting was only with
Gulshanawwar. These inconsistencies created serious doubt regarding the alleged
meeting and the existence of any conspiracy. The Court further observed that the
witnesses did not specify any exact date or time of the alleged meeting and merely
stated that it occurred about fifteen days before the incident. Ordinarily, the entry
and exit of visitors in jail premises is recorded in official registers, yet the witnesses
did not refer to any such record. This omission weakened the credibility of the claim
that the meeting had in fact taken place. The investigation record also undermined
the prosecution version. The case diary indicated that the accused Jamshed had
6
Application U/S 482 No.- 9654 Of 2021
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 3 of 16
earlier been transferred from the local jail to Saharanpur Jail and thereafter to
Mirzapur Jail, following a quarrel among inmates. As a result, he was not present in
the local jail at the relevant time. This circumstance cast further doubt on the
allegation that Rajendra and Mausam had met him there shortly before the incident.
Still further, it was found the circumstances in which PW-6 and PW-7
allegedly overheard the conversation to be doubtful. According to their own
statements, they heard the discussion while passing near the meeting place while
returning home. However, their houses were situated between Rajwaha and the
alleged meeting place, and there was no settlement beyond that point. In such
circumstances the Court found it unlikely that they would have taken that route. The
Court also noted that despite allegedly hearing about a plan to murder Ammar, the
witnesses did not inform the deceased but reported the matter only to the
complainant, who admittedly had prior enmity with the accused persons. The Court
then examined the testimony of the complainant and found significant contradictions
between his FIR and his statement before the Court. In the FIR he stated that four
assailants arrived on two motorcycles and opened fire. During his testimony he
introduced a new version stating that three additional persons had also arrived on
another motorcycle. This fact had not been mentioned in the written report or in his
earlier police statement. The allegation of a prior conspiracy was also absent from
the FIR. Further inconsistencies were noted regarding the circumstances in which
the injured Ammar was taken to the hospital. The complainant stated that he had
taken the deceased to the hospital where he was declared dead. However, the general
diary entry recorded that Ammar was brought to the hospital in an injured condition
and died later, and that he had been brought there by a rickshaw puller named Farid
Ahmad. These contradictions raised doubts about the reliability of the complainant’s
account. The Court also considered the physical circumstances of the incident. The
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 4 of 16
complainant claimed that he was seated behind the deceased on a scooter when the
assailants fired multiple shots. The post-mortem report showed that the deceased
sustained five gunshot injuries. Despite being in such close proximity during the
attack, the complainant did not suffer any injury, even though he admitted that the
accused persons had prior enmity with him. The Court regarded this circumstance
as suspicious. The Court also found the alleged motive to be weak. The prosecution
claimed that Ammar was targeted because he had been pleading strongly in another
murder case involving the accused persons. However, the complainant admitted that
Ammar was not a witness of fact in that case and had only been a witness for the
seizure of blood-stained soil. The deceased had never testified against the accused
persons. In fact, it was the complainant who had deposed against them.
In light of these factors, the Court held that the evidence of the complainant
was inconsistent with the FIR and the documentary record, and that the statements
of PW-6 and PW-7 were mutually contradictory and unreliable. The Court,
therefore, concluded that the evidence did not reach the standard required for
summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC and that no sufficient
ground existed to summon Rajendra and Mausam to face trial.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record.
The central question is the propriety of the exercise of power by the Trial Court
under Section 319 Cr.PC and the justifiability of the imprimatur granted thereto by
the Court below. Before proceeding to the merits of the matter, it is important to
understand the scales on which the question of propriety will be adjudged. Courts
generally assess evidence at three distinct levels, depending on the stage of
proceedings and the nature of the relief prayed for. The lowest threshold, or prima
facie standard, requires only a connection to proceed with formal charges. The
middle threshold, which is often described as strong and cogent , applies when
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 5 of 16
Courts consider summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC; the
evidence must be reliable and reasonably persuasive, but proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not required. The highest threshold demands proof beyond reasonable
doubt, the standard necessary for conviction, where the Court must be fully satisfied
of the guilt of the accused. It is best illustrated through a hypothetical situation-
At night, a high-end jewelry store is robbed. Police investigation seizes CCTV
footage showing a masked person fleeing on a motorcycle, statements from two
eyewitnesses, and phone records linking certain suspects to the vicinity of the store
at the time of the incident.
At the first stage, the investigating officer submits a charge-sheet against
Person ‘A’. The Magistrate reviews the evidence, including the CCTV footage,
witness statements, and other investigative material. Based on this, the Magistrate
finds that there is sufficient ground to believe that ‘A’ may have committed the offence
and frames charges. This stage requires evidence indicating involvement beyond
mere suspicion, but it does not demand full proof or trial-level examination thereof.
During the trial of ‘A’, evidence emerges suggesting that Persons ‘B’ and ‘C’
may also have been involved in planning or executing the robbery. A witness reports
seeing ‘B’ near the scene discussing the plan with ‘A’, while phone records and
CCTV footage show interactions between ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’. The Court would examine
whether this evidence is strong and cogent enough to summon ‘B’ and ‘C’ as
additional accused under Section 319. Minor contradictions in witness accounts or
timing are noted, but they do not automatically negate the overall reliability of the
evidence. At this stage, the court is not determining guilt, only assessing whether a
reasonable inference of involvement exists.
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 6 of 16
As the trial continues, forensic evidence reveals fingerprints of ‘B’ on the
display case and DNA of ‘C’ on a glove left at the scene. Eyewitnesses place ‘B’ and
‘C’ at the time of the robbery, and phone messages show coordination among all the
three. Cross-examination fails to provide credible alibis. Cumulative assessment of
the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt regarding the participation of ‘A’, ‘B’, and
‘C’, and the Court can convict all three. This represents the highest threshold, where
minor inconsistencies are immaterial because the totality of the evidence
conclusively establishes guilt.
7. The standard of judicial review having been appreciated as above, we turn
back to the instant facts. The discussion made by the Trial Court is reproduced
below, since the emphasis is on contradictions, apparently minor or even major, it is
imperative, at the cost of brevity, to appreciate the consideration given thereto:
“ It is also pertinent to mention here that application in question was
presented on the basis of sufficiency of evidence as to plotting of
conspiracy by proposed accused persons namely Rajendra and
Mausam on the behest of accused persons already detained in the
Jail namely Gulshanawwar, Jamshedvand Naushad on the basis of
statements of PW- 6Khalil and PW- 7 Tazim recorded before the
Court. In this case, this statement made by complainant Mohammad
Kalim (PW- 1) before the Court during his examination-in-chief is
important that, "15 days before this incident, Tazim and Khalil of
my Village have told me that they have heard Rajendra and
Mausam discussing with Dilshad, Mumtaz and Aabid that when
they have gone to meet Gulshanawwar, Naushad, Jamshed in the
Jail at that time they have sent the name back saying that
Mohammad Ammar is pleading much in the case, so remove him
from theway and they have also said that while taking our names
tell them to do this act and they have also said that this act is to be
committed only at Muzaffar Nagar since they will not find witnesses
over there".
In this way, as per the statement of PW- 1, above both witnesses
PW- 6 and PW- 7 have stated about accused persons namely
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 7 of 16
Dilshad, Mumtaz as named in F.I.R of Ex. A-1 making with 3:
accused persons namely Gulshanawwar, Naushad and said in the
Jail, who have given them message of committing murder of
deceased Ammar and having discussion in this regard. It is evident
that from among all 3 accused persons named in the F.I.R of Ex. A-
1 namely Dilshad, Mumtaz and Aabid, the Police has only found
accused Dilshad to be involved in this incident, whereas, no
evidence was found against other 2 accused persons. In this
situation, it is expedient to analyze the statements made by
complainant (PW- 1) and PW- 6 and PW- 7 on aforesaid relevant
point. In this regard, on the one hand complainant (PW- 1) has
stated about above two proposed persons meeting above 3 accused
persons in the Jail, whereas, PW- 6 Khalil Ahmad has stated in his
examination -in -chief that Mausam and Rajendra were telling
Mumtaz, Aabid, Dilshad that when we have gone to meet
Gulshanawwar and Naushad in the Jail at that time they have said
that they have had discussion with Jamshed that Ammar is pleading
a lot. Go and tell Dilshad, Mumtaz and Aabid that Ammar Pradhan
is to be killed at Muzaffar Nagar and not in Village Sikri, so that
they may not find any evidence in Muzaffar Nagar. On aforesaid
point, witness PW- 7 Tazim has stated in his examination-in-chief
that Rajendra and Mausam have told that today we have gone to
meet Gulshanawwar in the Jail. Gulshanawwar told us that Ammar
Pradhan is pleading a lot in this case, he needs to be removed from
the way and he has had discussion in this regard with Jamshed,
Dilshad, Naushad and it was also decided that he was not to be
killed in the Village, rather, in the town. In addition, above both
witnesses PW- 6 and PW- 7 have also stated that after hearing
aforesaid discussion they have come and narrated it over to their
uncle Kalim on the same day. On the point of reaching at the so-
called place of meeting, PW- 7 has stated that murder of Ammar
Pradhan was committed on22/8/2017. Nearly 15 days before this
incident he has gone to know the wellbeing of mother-in-law of his
uncle Bhura @ Khalid. She has sustained fractures in her hip bone.
They were sitting over there and while he was sitting even Khalil
has come. They have departed for their houses from there at around
7-7:15 p.m. Meeting place of Gulshanawwar was situated on the
way and when they reached near to the meeting place at that time
they have heard the name of Ammar Pradhan, on which they have
stood over there near the jungle and at that time they have heard
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 8 of 16
the fact as to discussion (conspiracy).Similarly, PW- 6 has also
stated that murder of deceased Ammar was committed on 22/8/17.
15 days before aforesaid incident he has gone to the house of his
relative. The daughter of his sister-in law was married with
Dilshad. Mother of Dilshad has sustained fractures. He has gone
over there to know the well being of her. He has reached at the
house of Dilshad at around 6-X: 30 a.m., where he has met with
Tajim and he has stayed over there for around one hour and he also
has had tea etc. Thereafter, Tazim and he have departed from there.
In this way, it is evident from the statements of above 3 witnesses
that on the one hand complainant PW- 1 states about meeting
between the proposed persons and 3 accused persons detained in
the Jail persons meeting only with 2 accused persons detained in
the Jail namely Gulshanawwar and Naushad, who have stated to
have had discussion with Jamshed, whereas, PW- 7 states about
meeting only with one accused detained in the Jail named
Gulshanawwar, who has given message to aforesaid both proposed
persons. In addition, he also said that he has had discussion with
all namely Jamshed, Dilshad and Naushad. It is pertinent to
mention here that no exact date and time of so-called meeting by
the proposed both persons with the persons detained in Jail is
mentioned, rather, only this much was stated that aforesaid given
to place nearly 15 days before the incident, whereas, entry and exit
regarding any person in the Jail is maintained in the register, in
respect of which, aforesaid witnesses are silent. Itis evident that all
3 accused persons namely Gulshanawwar, Naushad and Jamshed
concerning criminal conspiracy were detained in the Jail at the time
of incident. Investigating Officer has arraigned while they were
detained in the Jail and has recorded statements of above 3 accused
persons U /s. 161 of Cr.P.C. with the prior permission of the Court
and then only charges were invoked against them. In this regard, it
would be appropriate to perused the evidences gathered by the
investigating Officer, in respect of which, CD number 17 of the case
diary is important, which was prepared by the investigating Officer
on 18 / 9 / 2017, which bears seeking aforesaid permission of the
Court for recording statement is mentioned and it is also evident
here that after receiving permission from the Court, the
investigating Officer has has paid visit to District Jail, Muzaffar
Nagar to record the statements of accused persons namely Dilshad,
Gulshanawwar and Naushad under judicial custody detained in the
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 9 of 16
Jail and while sitting in the Office of Dy. Jailer, he has separately
recorded statements of above accused persons. According to
aforesaid statements, this fact has appeared 1n the statement of
accused a mutual quarrel has broken out between the prisoners
inside the Jail. In view of aforesaid quarrel, accused Jamshed was
firstly sent to Saharanpur Jail and thereafter he was sent to
Mirzapur Jail, that is, on the date of his statement, that is, on 18/ 9
/ 20 17,accused Jamshed not being detained in local Jail was rather
detained in Mirzapur Jail, and in this regard, Investigating Officer
has referred to the fact in CD that accused persons were firstly sent
to Saharanpur Jail and then to Mirzapur Jail nearly 1 year before
statement was recorded, whereas, it has been alleged that meeting
took place in the jail nearly 15 days before the incident took place
on 22.8.2017, of which no exact date or time is mentioned and even
the statement of complainant and other two witnesses on aforesaid
point of meeting is not alike. PW -6 and PW- 7, both of them in their
statements have stated about the meeting place of Gulshanawwar
lying on the way while they were returning back to their houses,
from where they were passing by naturally, but witness
Gulshanawwar is slightly away from "Rajwahe". Their ancestral
houses are situated in between Rajwahe and the place of meeting
and after Rajwaha there is no settlement, i.e. when no settlement is
present on that side then it is not natural for above both witnesses
to go from that side. Besides this, it is pertinent to mention here that
according to PW-6 and PW-7, after above both witnesses (PW- and
PW-7) have received the message in the jail from accused persons
namely Gulshanawwar, Naushad and Jamshed, first of all, they
were expected to inform the deceased, but they have told this fact
only to the complainant Kalim, who is having enmity with the
accused persons, whereas, PW-6 hailed from Seikh Community and
brother of deceased named Haji Hafiz used to stay in Village
Ummed, Sikri, but he has not informed him about it.
It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has claimed himself
to be an eye-witness, on which basis he has named accused persons
in the F.I.R, but evidences gathered during the course of
investigation. In this situation, even the evidence of complainant
(PW-1) is subject to scrutiny. In the\F .I. R of Ex. P-1, complainant
has stated about the deceased riding scooter and he himself was
sitting as pillion and before reaching at the place of incident, three
known and one unknown persons came over there by two
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 10 of 16
motorcycles, who have fired shots at scooter rider Ammar.
Thereafter, injured Ammar was taken by the complainant and one
more witness Iqbal to the District Hospital, where he was declared
dead, but while appearing before the Court as PW- 1, he has
admitted that, "it is true that besides the accused persons named in
the F.I.R, I have not mentioned the names of 3 persons coming by
another motorcycle to the place of incident in my written report. It
is true that for the 1st time I have stated before the Court about 3
unknown persons coming by 1 more motorcycle to the place of
incident. I have not told aforesaid fact over to the SHO in my Police
statement. persons had enmity with him and there were for accused
persons who have fired shots at the place of incident and there were
a total of 7 accused persons present at the place of incident. He has
got recorded the names of a total of 4 accused persons in the report.
He has not got mentioned the fact as to a total of 7 accused persons
in the report. Above witness PW- 1 has further stated that at the
time of murder of Ammar the accused persons namely Jamshed,
Gulshanawwar and Naushad were detained in Jail. All 3 of them
were detained in Jail in connection with murder case of Tasleem.
In his report, he has not got this fact mentioned that, "15 days before
this incident, Tazim and Khalil have told me that they have heard
Rajendra, Mausam discussing with Dilshad, Mumtaz, Aabid that
both of them have gone to meet Gulshanawwar, Naushad, Jamshed
in the Jail, who have sent them while saying that Mohammad
Ammar is pleading a lot in the cases, so remove him from the way
and they have also said Nagar since he would not find witnesses
over there".PW- 1 has admitted this fact that accused Jamshed was
in Mirzapur Jail on the date of incident and he does not know that
for how long Jam shed has been in the Jail before this incident.
Complainant has clearly mentioned in the F.I.R that they have
brought Ammar by rickshaw to the Hospital, where the doctors have
declared him as dead, that is, in the aforesaid report, complainant
has mentioned that deceased was declared as dead as soon as they
have reached Hospital, whereas, as PW- 1, though, he has denied
from this fact that a rickshaw puller named Farid has taken the
Ammar in dead condition to the Hospital and rickshaw puller has
admitted him in dead condition in District Iqbal has not met with
the Doctor in his presence and treatment of Ammar continued for
around 30-45 minutes. This fact is mentioned in G D number
37dated 22/08/2017 of P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 11 of 16
available on record that ward boy Akash having appeared at Police
Station from District Hospital Muzaffar Nagar has filed a memo
that Mohammad Ammar was brought to the emergency ward in
injured condition at 10:20 a.m. At 11:25 AM, he has died. Through
Farid Ahmad son of Rashid Ahmad Laddawala Muzaffar Nagar,
Mobile Phone No. 8869090310. In this way, on the point of time of
death of deceased, there are clear and substantial Hospital, but he
has definitely stated that Iqbal and he having lifted up Ammar have
taken him to the doctors, but he did not meet with the Doctor, nor
has Iqbal has not met with the Doctor in his presence and treatment
of Ammar continued for around 30-45 minutes. This fact is
mentioned in G D number 37 dated 22/08/2017 of P.S. Kotwali
Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar available on record that ward boy Akash
having appeared at Police Station from District Hospital Muzaffar
Nagar has filed a memo that Mohammad Ammar was brought to
the emergency ward in injured condition at 10:20 a.m. At 11:25
AM, he has died. Through Farid Ahmad son of Rashid Ahmad
Laddawala Muzaffar Nagar, Mobile Phone No. 8869090310. In this
way, on the point of time of death of deceased, there are clear and
substantial contradictions in the statement of complainant and facts
mentioned in the report. It is evident from the statement of
complainant (PW- 1) that he has admitted his enmity with the
accused persons of this case. Above witness PW- 1 has clearly
stated that Jamshed, Gulshanawwar and Naushad, all 3 of them
were detained in Jail in connection with murder case of Tasleem
and even in the aforesaid case shot was fired at him with an
intention to kill him, but he has escaped by whisker and in this case
he is eyewitness and accused persons having come from behind
have prevented his way by motorcycle and suddenly fired at him
with an intention to kill him. He has not sustained any firearm injury
in the aforesaid incident, nor has she sustained any other injury,
rather, he has escaped by whisker. He is eyewitness to the incident
of half murder case (Section 307 of IPC) that has happened with his
brother Bhura and he is also the informant. Shots were fired at him
in the incident that has happened with Bhura with an intention to
kill him, but he has escaped by whiskers and he has not sustained
any injury. In all aforesaid 3 incidents, neither has he sustained any
injury from truncheons-mistakes, nor has he sustained any firearm
injury. It is expedient to mention here that complainant has stated
to be riding as they pillion behind the deceased on the during the
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 12 of 16
course of his statement that assailants have overtaken his scooter
from among whom 4 of the assailants have started firing, in which
incident it was the deceased who has sustained all the gunshot
injury and complainant was riding as a pillion has not sustained
any kind of injury, whereas, in the post-mortem report of deceased,
3 gunshot injuries were shown on the back, whereas, two gunshot
injuries were shown in the front, which is clearly in contradiction
to the facts mentioned in the aforesaid written report of
complainant and his statement recorded on oath. In his F.I.R, the
complainant has stated about 4 assailants coming to the place of
incident by 2 Nos. of motorcycles, whereas, in his statements, he
has also stated the presence of 3 other persons coming by one
motorcycle and while aforesaid 4 assailants were firing shots and
complainant has also stated Besides this, presence of another
witness PW- 2 Iqbal was also stated and he was also stated to be an
eyewitness, who along with the complainant has allegedly taken the
deceased to Hospital, whereas, no such kind of documentary
evidences available on record. Complainant has stated about above
witness Iqbal to have reached at the site by motorcycle alongwith
him, reason whereof as per the complainant is that complainant did
not know how to ride motorcycle, for this reason he has brought
him along and on this point, on page number 21 of his evidence, he
has stated that he does not remember that whether he has got this
fact mentioned in his report that Iqbal Sf o. Sagir Hasan was
following him on motorcycle from behind or not. On seeing the
report, this witness has stated that this fact is not mentioned in the
report. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has stated
that the main objective of accused persons, who have been detained
in Jail, was the deceased pleading in the case in which PW- 1 has
also admitted in his evidence that in the aforesaid murder case of
Tasleem, deceased Ammar was the witness for seizure of blood
stained soil from the place of incident and in an incident that has
happened earlier in which his brother Bhura has sustained firearm
injury, Ammar was not a witness and deceased Ammar was also not
a witness in the abduction case of his brother Tazim. In addition, he
has further stated that deceased Ammar has never deposed against
accused persons, rather, he has deposed. He does not know that
whether Ammar has presented affidavit while pleading against
accused persons or not. It is evident from aforesaid the statement of
PW- 1 that deceased Ammar was not a witness of fact in the murder
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 13 of 16
case of Tasleem in which accused persons were detained in Jail,
rather, he was just a witness for seizure of blood stained soil and
deceased has never deposed against them, rather, it was the
complainant who has deposed. It is the plaintiff who has admitted
his enmity with the aforesaid 3 cases of attack, he has escaped by
whisker and he has been eyewitnesses as well as informant in
aforesaid entire cases. Even in the instant case, he has stated about
riding on pillion behind deceased at the time of incident and 4 Nos.
of assailants firing shots at the deceased, as a result of which 3
gunshot injuries were sustained on the back and 2 Nos. of gunshot
injuries were sustained in front, but despite of it, complainant has
not sustained any kind of injury, whereas, accused persons had
enmity with the complainant. Under these circumstances, statement
of complainant itself lies within the periphery of reasonable
suspicion. In this way, evidence of complainant is in clear
contradiction on substantial points from his F.I.R and evidences of
PW- 6 and PW- 7 are mutually contradictory and are in
contradiction with the evidences of the plaintiff on substantial
points.”
8. The Trial Court’s reasoning in rejecting the Section 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
7
suspicion. Both Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Neeraj Kumar v. State of
8
UP emphasize that the power under Section 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 Section 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
7
(2014) 3 SCC 92
8
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2639
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 14 of 16
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 complainant could have avoided injury, effectively applied a stricter
standard than necessary.
10. Another instance is that higher than necessary standard being applied is
reflected where the Court relied on the absence of jail records or highlighted minor
discrepancies in hospital admission or FIR details. While these points raise valid
questions about reliability, they are not points that can be gone into threadbare at this
stage. Further, we find the Trial Court to have erred in taking a fragmented approach
while appreciating evidence. The Trial Court treated each inconsistency in isolation
rather than assessing the cumulative weight of all testimonies and circumstances.
Similarly, reliance on documentary corroboration is not required; oral evidence
alone, if credible, may suffice. The Court’s emphasis on the lack of jail records and
the physical plausibility of witness accounts could be seen as exceeding the threshold
scrutiny expected at this stage. The Court overstepped the intended scope of pre-trial
scrutiny, overemphasized minor inconsistencies, and did not fully consider the
cumulative force of the evidence. The law consistently balances caution against
undue summoning with the need to ensure that potentially implicated individuals are
brought to trial when the record, taken as a whole, reasonably supports it.
11. Apart from the point of standard of review, it is also noticed that the proposed
additional accused, namely Mumtaz and Aabid, have been named as persons
involved in the case by way of a larger conspiracy or otherwise, by PW-1, as noticed
by the trial court itself and also PWs 6 & 7. It is a separate matter that, as found by
the Trial Court, there are inconsistencies in the overall testimonies of these witnesses
but, that is a matter of trial and not within the Court’s scope at the time of considering
an application under section 319 CrPC. The testimony, on oath, by 3 witnesses,
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 15 of 16
including the complainant no less, in our view, is sufficient in the facts of this case
to meet the strong and cogent evidence standard.
12. In view of the above discussion, the judgments of the Courts below with
particulars as described in paragraph 1, stand set aside. The persons who sought to
be produced as additional accused are ordered to be produced as such, and proceeded
with, in accordance with law. These appeals are accordingly allowed. Let a copy of
this order be sent to the Trial Court for necessary action, through the Registrar
General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
…………………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………………………………………………J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
New Delhi
March 17, 2026
SLP (CRL.) No. 11085/2025 Page 16 of 16