Section 319 CrPC requires strong, reliable evidence before summoning a proposed accused; weak material is insufficient.

Section 319 CrPC may be invoked only on strong, cogent and reliable evidence of a quality that, if unrebutted, may lead to conviction. Here, the evidence was insufficient: PW-1 was not an eyewitness, had earlier stated that the appellants' names were falsely written in the FIR and that they were not involved in the murder, the charge-sheet did not name them, and no other witness or document implicated them. The later deposition did not meet the higher threshold required for summoning. The Supreme Court held that the summoning order was unsustainable and set it aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rightly exercised to summon the appellants on the evidence adduced during trial.

Analysis: The power under Section 319 is extraordinary and discretionary, and it can be exercised only where the evidence before the court is strong and cogent enough that, if unrebutted, it may lead to conviction of the person sought to be added. The material against the appellants was found insufficient. PW-1 was not an eyewitness, had earlier stated under Section 161 that the names of the appellants were written in the FIR falsely and without full information, and also stated that they were not involved in the murder. The charge-sheet did not name the appellants. No other witness implicated them, and there was no documentary material showing their role. PW-1's later deposition did not create the higher degree of satisfaction required for invoking Section 319.

Conclusion: The summoning of the appellants under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was unsustainable and liable to be set aside; the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Power under Section 319 can be exercised only on strong and reliable evidence of such quality that, if unrebutted, it would likely lead to conviction, and not on a mere prima facie or suspicious basis.

---