Hetram @ Babli vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 (SC) 930

That the Apex Court held that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be considered based solely on the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses, or should the cross-examination also be taken into account before deciding on summoning an additional accused. The facts of the cases are as follows: 

• The case involves the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The appellant, Hetram @ Babli, challenged the decision of the High Court, which upheld the summoning of the accused based only on the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses, without considering their cross-examination. 
• The prosecution witnesses, during their chief examination, gave incriminating evidence against the appellant. However, in their cross-examination, the witnesses stated that the allegations made during the examination-in-chief were omissions and not specific statements made at the time of the incident. 
• The appellant contended that the trial court and the High Court had failed to consider the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, which could potentially weaken the case against him and affect the decision to summon additional accused under Section 319. 

• Whether the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be considered based solely on the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses, or should the cross-examination also be taken into account before deciding on summoning an additional accused? 
• Whether the trial court erred in summoning an additional accused without considering the contradiction between the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses? 

• The Supreme Court held that the decision to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should not be based solely on the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses.
• The Court emphasized that due credence must also be given to the cross-examination, if available, before filing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
• Justice Oka, while delivering the judgment, explained that the prima facie case for summoning an accused under Section 319 can only be made when both the examination-in- chief and the cross-examination are taken into account. 
• Referring to Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), the Court reiterated that prima facie case must be established through both the examination-in-chief and cross-examination before exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 
• Applying this to the present case, the Court found that the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses contradicted their examination-in-chief, and therefore, there was no sufficient basis to justify the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 
• The Court concluded that the trial court and the High Court erred in upholding the application to summon the appellant without considering the contradictions and omissions in the cross-examination. 

• Importance of Cross-Examination: The judgment reinforces the principle that a fair trial necessitates that both examination-in-chief and cross-examination are considered when deciding whether to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 
• Prima Facie Case: The Court made it clear that the prima facie case for summoning an accused can only be determined when both parts of the testimony (examination-in-chief and cross-examination) are properly evaluated. 
• Precedent: The Court relied on the Hardeep Singh case (2014), highlighting that no presumption of guilt or sufficient grounds for summoning an accused should be made without considering all relevant testimonies, including contradictions raised during cross- examination.