- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.986 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHARLS S/O. SRI. WILLIAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT. BAGE VILLAGE, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 214. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUPRITHA K.H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THE STATE BY SAKALESHAPURA POLICE STATION, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 134,REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. UMESH, S/O SRI. SHESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT. BAGE VILLAGE, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 214. R Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 3. SRI. EITHAPPA S/O SRI. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT.BAGE VILLAGE, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN- 573 214. 4. SRI. SHANKARA @ UMASHANKARA, S/O SRI. JAGANATHAPOOJARI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT. BAGE VILLAGE, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 214. 5. SRI. DIVAKARA, S/O SRI. BABU MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. BAGE VILLAGE, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 214. 6. SRI. ANANDA, S/O SRI. AMBODI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. BAGE VILLAGE, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 214. 7. SRI. SHYAMASUNDARA @SUNDAR, S/O SRI. SANKI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. BAGE VILLAGE, BELAGODU HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 214. 8. SRI. THIMAPPA S/O SRI. LATE PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT. BAGE VILLAGE, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 214. 9. SRI. RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA @RAMAKRISHNA B.S, S/O SRI. SHESHAPPAPOOJARI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT. BAGE VILLAGE, BELAGODU HOBLI,SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 214. 10. SRI. RAKESH B.S, S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT. BAGE VILLAGE, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 214. 11. SRI. PUNITH, S/O SRI. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT. ALUVALLI VILLAGE, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 214. 12. SRI. MANU, S/O SRI. SADANAND, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 R/AT. ARASU NAGARA, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573 134. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. S SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R12; R2 DEAD) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2026 PASSED BY THE HONB’LE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN SC NO.157/2017 WHEREBY THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 319 OF THE CR.PC TO BE DISMISSED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 as well as the learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State. 2. This petition is filed against the dismissal of the application filed under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as it is premature in nature. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 3. The trial Court while rejecting the application comes to the conclusion that in paragraph No.13 that the first informant who was examined as P.W.1 was not subjected for cross-examination. Apart from that C.Ws.2 to 10 who are other injured eyewitnesses and eyewitnesses required to be examined. Under these circumstances, the present application has become premature. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 4. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner vehemently contend that when the incident was taken place, specific allegation is made against these proposed accused persons, who have been proposed as accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7 and 10 and their names are found in FIR respectively and while filing the charge sheet, their names have been left out without assigning any reasons in the charge sheet. The counsel would also submit that when the injured witness comes before the Court and depose before the Court by making overtact of each of the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 accused persons in his evidence. Thereafter, an application is filed for invoking Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The very approach of the trial Court is erroneous and the law is very settled that need not necessarily the witness to be cross-examined and even other witnesses were also not examined and the same cannot be a ground when P.W.1 categorically deposes before the Court that all these accused persons have played their role, that too attack against P.W.1 and other injured witnesses and ought not to have rejected the same. 5. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents/proposed accused would submit that the trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 was not subjected to corroboration and other injured witnesses were not examined and ought to have examined other witnesses and hence rightly comes to the conclusion that application is premature. Further, the counsel would also submit that these petitioners were not - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 present at the time of the incident as they were hospitalized. 6. The learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1/State would submit that in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, held that if the material witnesses speaks about the very involvement of the other accused persons who have been left out, then the Court can invoke Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Having heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State and as well as the counsel appearing for respondent No.2, the law is very clear that it need not necessarily the witnesses who have been examined before the Court subject for cross-examination and the evidence which was recorded before the trial Court with regard to involvement of other accused persons particularly deposing about overtact of each of the accused persons, - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 an application ought to have been filed on 23.01.2019 and the same is filed and the learned trial Judge committed an error in coming to the conclusion that P.W.1 was not subjected to cross examination and it appears that the trial Court proceeded in an erroneous approach that P.W.1 ought to have been cross examined. 8. This Court would like to refer the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1400, wherein it categorically held that regarding degree of satisfaction required for invoking the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. discussed elaborately and it appears from the evidence and meaning of the word ‘appearance’ i.e. lesser degree of probability than proof and on the objective satisfaction of the Court, a person may be ‘arrested’ or ‘summoned’, as the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which a - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons. 9. The Court while invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C. without summoning the subsequent accused before the Court without waiting for cross-examination whether only prima facie case is established against the accused which requires stronger complicity. Therefore, Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked in a case like the present one where no evidence has been led at a trial wherefrom it can be said that the appellants appear to have been involved in the commission of the crime along with those already sent up for trial by the prosecution. The difference in the degree of satisfaction of summoning the accused and it is on account of the fact that the trial may have commenced and it is in the cross of such trial that materials are disclosed against namely summoned accused and the fresh summoning of accused would result in delay of trial. Therefore, the degree of satisfaction has to be differentiated. Having dealt with the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 same in detail, the Apex Court in paragraph No.84 held and this Court would like to extract paragraph Nos.84 and 85 of the judgment which reads as under: “84. Further, in our opinion, there does not seem to be any logic behind waiting till the cross-examination of the witness is over. It is to be kept in mind that at the time of exercise of power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the person sought to be arraigned as an accused, is in no way participating in the trial. Even if the cross-examination is to be taken into consideration, the person sought to be arraigned as an accused cannot cross examine the witness(s) prior to passing of an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., as such a procedure is not contemplated by the Cr.P.C. Secondly, invariably the State would not oppose or object to naming of more persons as an accused as it would only help the prosecution in completing the chain of evidence, unless the witness(s) is obliterating the role of persons already facing trial. More so, Section 299 Cr.P.C. enables the Court to record evidence in absence of the accused in the circumstances mentioned therein.” 85. Thus, in view of the above, we hold the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at the stage of completion of examination in chief and court does not need to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination for it is the satisfaction of the court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the court, in respect of - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 complicity of some other person(s), not facing the trial in the offence.” 10. Having taken note the discussion made in the judgment, it is very clear that only test of prima-facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter and in the above paragraphs, it is very clear that under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, exercises the stage of completion of examination of chief and the Court does not wait till such evidence is tested but it is for the satisfaction of the Court, it is covered from the reasons recorded by the Court and the Apex Court also held in paragraph No.98 that power under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 11. Having considered the detailed discussion made by the Apex Court in the noted judgment, it is very clear that it is not necessary to have cross examination of witnesses, Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure could be invoked if it is after chief evidence, it could be exercised. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 18.10.2024 in the case of Asim Akhtar vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in 2024 INSC 794, while considering Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12292/2022 taken note of the judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh stated supra wherein in paragraph No.4 particularly taken note that the trial Court went on to decide the application under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure and held that the evidence recorded so - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 far was not admissible as the witnesses had failed to present themselves for cross-examination as such there was no justification for summoning the parents of accused- appellant on the basis of inadmissible evidence and the same was rejected. But in this judgment at paragraph No.5, it was held that judgment does not taken away the decision of the trial Court to wait for cross examination and take place before deciding the application under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it merely provides the consideration of such application and it should not be a mini trial. It is for the trial Court to decide whether the application should be decided without waiting for the cross examination to take place or to wait for it. The same would depend upon the satisfaction of the trial Court on the basis of the material placed on record and held that in the judgment of Hardeep Singh (supra), in paragraph No.89 held that once the cross examination is concluded, the statement become a part of the record and it is evidence as per law and in the true sense, for at best, it may be - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 rebuttable. An evidence being rebutted or controverted becomes a matter of consideration, relevance and belief, which is the stage of 5 Page 56 of the judgment prima facie opinion as to complicity of some other person who may be connected with the offence. Having considered the said principle, held that there is no mandate to decide the application under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure before cross examination of other witnesses. The complicity of any person sought to be arrayed as accused can be decided with or without conducting cross- examination of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses in paragraph No.7. 13. The other reason assigned to invoke Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that CWs.2 to 10 are also eyewitnesses and they have not been examined. When one of the injured witnesses comes before the Court and depose the very role of all these proposed accused persons who have involved in committing the offence, the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner rightly - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 brought to notice of this Court that immediately after the incident when complaint was filed, their names were found in the FIR as accused Nos.1, 6, 7 and 10 but they were left out while filing the charge sheet and the law is very clear that there is no need of cross examination of the witnesses and also no need of corroboration as contended by the counsel appearing for the respondent. With regard to the plea of Alibi is concerned, the burden lies upon the accused to prove plea of Alibi at the time of trial. All these grounds cannot be invoked by the respondent and having taken note of the reasoning given by the trial Court that application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is premature cannot be accepted. The trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and hence, the order of the trial Court requires to be set aside and the very reasoning that it was premature is erroneous approach by the trial Court and fail to consider the evidence of P.W.1 who deposed specific overtact of each of - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010403722026 NC: 2026:KHC:37518 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2026 the accused who proposed to be implicated in the case on hand. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a. Revision petition is allowed. b. Impugned order of the trial Court dated 08.04.2026 passed in S.C.No.157/2017 is set aside and consequently the application filed under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56