Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sandeep @ Sandeep Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 10 April, 2026
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.13503 of 2025)
SANDEEP @ SANDEEP SHARMA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant-Complainant applied under Section 319 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as “Cr.P.C.”) for summoning of Respondent 2 – 6 herein as
accused persons, after recording of the statement of PW-1
(Surender) who was an injured person in the case. The said
application was rejected by the Trial Court on 16.08.2021 on
the pretext that the said witness has not specifically
indicated any overt act on the part of accused Neeraj and
Rinku (Respondent 4 and 5) though specific allegations have
been made against Accused Bajrang, Sonu and Sombir (Respondent
2, 3 and 6). It is further observed that against Sonu,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.04.18
12:07:03 IST
Reason:
2
allegation was that he had hit the injured person with an axe
though injury over the head has been caused by a hard and
blunt object. As such, the Court disbelieved the testimony of
PW-1 and further observed that his statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. was recorded after eight days of the incident.
Therefore, in the prospectus of this case, the said
application was rejected. On filing of the criminal revision
before the High Court, the order impugned came to be passed
maintaining the order passed by the Trial court rejecting the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Dissatisfied with the
said order of the High Court, the Complainant has filed the
instant appeal.
3. In the present case, certain facts, shorn of unnecessary
details, are relevant, and are required to be referred. The
incident in question occurred on 27.05.2017 and FIR was lodged
on the same day under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341,
506 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). In
the said FIR, the Respondents 2 to 6, Bajrang, Sonu, Neeraj,
Rinku and Sombir were named along with other co-accused
persons. It was alleged that the accused persons had assaulted
3
the injured persons, Surender Singh and Sajjan Singh. As per
report of the doctor dated 27.05.2017, both injured persons
were found to be unfit to give their statement to the police
in investigation and it was stated that the patient was not
responding to local stimulus. On 03.06.2017, doctor declared
Surender fit to record his statement, the injuries caused to
him were declared as life threatening and grievous in nature.
Pursuant thereto, statement of Surender (PW-1) under Section
161 was recorded on 03.06.2017 and that of Sajjan was recorded
on 05.06.2017. In both their statements under Section 161,
they have disclosed the names of all the accused persons
including Respondent No. 2 to 6 and attributed specific acts.
However, when the charge sheet was filed on 23.08.2017, it was
only filed against eight persons, keeping investigation
pending against the other accused that too without adding an
offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
4. The Injured – Surender approached the High Court by
filing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. bearing
Criminal Misc. No. M-33318 of 2017 alleging that impartial
investigation was not being undertaken in the matter and
4
Section 307 IPC had not been included in the chargesheet even
though the medical report was available with the police. In
the said petition, on 08.09.2017, an order was passed by the
High Court directing the Superintendent of Police to look into
the matter and consider the representations of the Petitioner.
The Supplementary Chargesheet was filed on 04.01.2018, adding
the offence under Section 307 IPC pursuant to the Medical
Board’s report dated 20.11.2017 that the injuries caused to
Surender were dangerous to life, while recording that the
injured Sajjan suffered 5 fractures while the injured Surender
suffered 7 fractures. However, in the Supplementary
Chargesheet, it was recorded that the Respondent 2 – 6 were
found were found to be innocent during investigation by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as
“DSP”), Shivani.
5. This Court, vide its order dated 13.03.2026 directed the
State to produce the report of the DSP, which has been
mentioned in the Supplementary Chargesheet as the reason for
not making the Respondent No. 2 – 6 as accused in the said
case.
5
6. In compliance of the said order, the report of the DSP
dated 26.09.2017 has been brought on record, which inter alia,
records that the charge sheet may be filed only against eight
persons without joining Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 based on their
plea of alibi and in this report statements of some of the
witnesses were recorded, which according to the DSP concerned,
had proved the alibi of the Respondent No. 2 – 6 and had
proved their innocence. Nothing has been brought on record to
indicate, why, at the time of filing of the initial Charge
Sheet on 23.08.2017, the Respondent 2 – 6 were not made
accused although their names were mentioned in the FIR and in
the statements of the injured witnesses recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C.
7. The law with respect to Section 319 Cr.P.C. was
reiterated and summarized by this Court in its recent
judgement in Omi v. State of M.P., (2025) 2 SCC 621 in
following terms:
6
“19. The principles of law as regards Section 319
CrPC may be summarised as under:
19.1. On a careful reading of Section 319CrPC as
well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes
clear that the trial court has undoubted
jurisdiction to add any person not being the
accused before it to face the trial along with
other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at
any stage of the proceedings on the evidence
adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed
as accused should face the trial. It is further
evident that such person even though had initially
been named in the FIR as an accused, but not
charge-sheeted, can also be added to face the
trial.
19.2. The trial court can take such a step to add
such persons as accused only on the basis of
evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of
materials available in the charge-sheet or the case
diary, because such materials contained in the
charge-sheet or the case diary do not constitute
evidence.
19.3. The power of the court under Section 319 CrPC
is not controlled or governed by naming or not
naming of the person concerned in the FIR. Nor the
same is dependent upon submission of the charge-
sheet by the police against the person concerned.
As regards the contention that the phrase “any
person not being the accused” occurred in Section
319 excludes from its operation an accused who has
been released by the police under Section 169 of
the Code and has been shown in Column 2 of the
charge-sheet, the contention has merely to be
stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly
covers any person who is not being tried already by
the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a
provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that
even persons who have been dropped by the police
during investigation but against whom evidence
showing their involvement in the offence comes
7
before the criminal court are included in the said
expression.
19.4. It would not be proper for the trial court to
reject the application for addition of new accused
by considering records of the investigating
officer. When the evidence of complainant is found
to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of
the investigating officer hardly matters. If
satisfaction of investigating officer is to be
treated as determinative then the purpose of
Section 319 would be frustrated.”
8. It is clear from the above judgement therefore, that the
Trial Court has to form an opinion at the stage of Section 319
Cr.P.C. application being filed, on the evidence adduced
before the Court. It has to examine the evidence adduced and
not be swayed by the naming or not naming of an accused in the
chargesheet, or the opinion of the investigating officer in
the chargesheet.
9. At present, we are not making any observations about the
report of the DSP because it may prejudice the defense, if
any, of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (proposed accused persons)
in trial. However, looking to the sequence of events, one fact
which is absolutely clear is that ever since the date of
lodging of the FIR, the name of the Respondent 2 – 6 has
8
figured in the FIR and even in the statement of the injured
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the names of the
Respondent 2 – 6 were mentioned with specific roles attributed
to them. The said injured witnesses have reiterated about the
specific roles ascribed to Respondent 2 – 6 in their testimony
before Court and in such circumstances, the rejection of the
application for joining them as accused, on the pretext of
possible defenses which may be taken by the accused, cannot be
countenanced.
10. We have dealt with the matter only on facts and on prima
facie perusal of the evidence adduced, which is the standard
of examination required for the purpose of Section 319
Cr.P.C., and since any adverse observation by us may affect
the defense of the Respondents 2 – 6 in trial, we are not
embarking upon a deeper examination. However, looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case in which despite having
the Doctor’s opinion that the injuries caused to the injured
were dangerous to life, the offence under Section 307 was not
added at the very first instance and subsequently, the
Respondent 2 – 6 were not made accused on the strength of
9
their defense of alibi which was accepted by the DSP, and
other cumulative circumstances where it is clear from the
evidence adduced that the Respondent 2 – 6 were named in the
FIR, named by the Injured in their statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and by P.W.1 Surender in his testimony before the
Trial Court, we are of the view that the rejection of the
application under Section 319 by the Trial Court affirmed by
the High Court deserves to be set aside and such application
deserves to be allowed.
11. Since the incident is of the year 2017, and the trial has
been held up for various reasons, however, the counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 has fairy stated
that they shall appear before the Trial Court on 27.04.2026
and on the said date, on their appearance, the Court may
release them on bail and bind them for appearance during trial
imposing conditions. Thereafter the Court shall proceed to
frame the charge and expeditiously complete the trial as far
as possible within one and a half years.
10
12. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Pending
applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
…………………………………………………,J.
[J.K. MAHESHWARI]
…………………………………………………,J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
New Delhi;
April 10, 2026.
11
ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 13503/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-07-2025
in CRR No. 1058/2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh]
SANDEEP @ SANDEEP SHARMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION)
Date : 10-04-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ashwin Kumar Nair, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Anurag Kulharia, A.A.G.
Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR
Dr. Navya Jannu, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv.
Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, AOR
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Amitoz Kaur, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
12
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (NAND KISHOR)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
