Lack of Sufficient Evidence and Inconsistencies in Deposition Lead to Reversal of Summons Order.

Legal case involving an appeal against a summoning order under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) issued by the Trial Court, which was upheld by the High Court. The appellants challenge the summoning order on the grounds of insufficient evidence against them. The main issue revolves around whether there is substantial evidence to justify summoning the appellants to face trial for the offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The analysis primarily focuses on the testimony of the first informant (PW-1), who is the mother of the deceased, and whether her statements provide enough basis for summoning the appellants.

1.            Issue:

•             Central question regarding the sufficiency of evidence against the appellants to warrant a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

2.            Analysis:

Examination of legal principles from previous judgments, emphasizing the stringent criteria for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. b. Evaluation of evidence, particularly focusing on PW-1's statements and their consistency. c. Comparison of PW-1's initial FIR, Section 161 statement, and subsequent deposition before the trial court. d. Lack of corroborating evidence or testimony against the appellants. e. Conclusion that the evidence fails to meet the high threshold required for summoning the appellants.

3.            Decision:

•             Finding that the Trial Court erred in issuing the summoning order and the High Court failed to quash it.

•             Decision to allow the appeals, setting aside both the High Court judgment and the Trial Court's summoning order.