A prior inconsistent police statement does not bar summoning under Section 319 on trial evidence.

Respondent No. 2’s complaint named the petitioner and alleged that he assaulted her; the police registered an FIR for offences under Sections 506, 341, 323, 324, 355 and 504 IPC.

In a subsequent statement to the investigating officer, she allegedly stated that the petitioner had not assaulted or harmed her, and he was omitted from the charge sheet.

At trial, however, she reiterated the allegations against him.

The Magistrate allowed the prosecution’s application under Section 319 CrPC to arraign him as an accused.

The petitioner sought to quash that order.

1. Whether the Magistrate was justified in summoning the petitioner under Section 319 CrPC, despite his omission from the charge sheet following the complainant’s subsequent statement to the investigating officer.

Section 319 CrPC empowers a court conducting a trial to proceed against a person not already arraigned as an accused when the evidence before it warrants that person’s trial with the existing accused.

Under Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2023) 7 SCC 344, the required satisfaction must be more than a prima facie view at the charge-framing stage, but less than the satisfaction required for conviction; the power may extend to a person named in the FIR but omitted from the charge sheet.

A witness’s statement to police during investigation is not, by itself, substantive evidence at trial; its evidentiary effect and any inconsistency with sworn testimony are matters to be assessed in accordance with law.

The petitioner was named in the original complaint and FIR, which attributed specific acts of assault to him, and the complainant reiterated those allegations in her evidence before the Magistrate.

Her inconsistent police statement did not, by itself, bar the exercise of Section 319 jurisdiction, since that statement was not substantive trial evidence.

In light of the allegations in the complaint and the evidence before the court, the High Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the Magistrate’s order.

The High Court left the trial court to proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.