Karnataka High Court Quashes Order Adding JD(S) Leader Suraj Revanna As Accused In Attempt To Murder Case

The Karnataka High Court has held that arraying a person as an accused under Section 319 CrPC is not a “frolicsome act” and must be supported by cogent evidence that establishes a much stricter degree of satisfaction than a prima facie case.

Consequently, the High Court quashed a Sessions Court order arraying Member of Karnataka Legislative Council from Janata Dal (Secular) party Suraj Revanna, as an accused in a case for several offences including attempt to murder. 

Section 319 of the CrPC, which corresponds to Section 358 BNSS, empowers a court to proceed against and try a person not named as an accused in the chargesheet if, based on the evidence, it appears to the court that the person has committed an offence.

Setting aside the trial court order, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed:

“The petitioner is not drawn as an accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet. Section 319 Cr.P.C., though permits drawing of an accused back into the web of proceedings on an application based on cogent reasons, it is not a frolicsome act. It requires evidence that is more than what is noticed at the time of filing of the charge sheet...

If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are tested on the anvil of elucidation of law by the Apex Court, what would emerge is, the evidence that is brought during the trial which was the same at the time of recording of the statement earlier, does not become a higher decree of evidence for the petitioner to be brought back into the web of proceedings. The concerned Court has erred in taking stray statement of witnesses which were completely contrary to what they had rendered at the time of investigation and it cannot become the fulcrum of an order of allowing an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., In that light, the petition deserves to succeed"

The High Court placed reliance on several Supreme Court rulings, including Shiv Baran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), wherein the Apex Court commenting on the power of the Trial Court held, “(e) This power is not to be exercised in a regular or cavalier manner, but only when strong or cogent evidence is available than the mere probability of complicity; (f) The degree of satisfaction required is much stricter than the prima facie case, which is needed at the time of framing of charge(s); (g) The Court should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage as the expression used is 'such person could be tried' and not 'should be tried'.”

The case arose from an incident on December 3, 2019, when as per the complaint filed by Shivananda @ Madhu, he and his friends went to a farm house belonging to their friend Santhosh, where Suraj Revanna along with 150 to 200 supporters allegedly arrived at the spot, abused the complainant and his friends for switching political support from JDS to BJP, and instigated the mob to assault them, damage their cars, and break into the house.

Based on the complaint, an FIR for several offences including attempt to murder was registered, in which Suraj Revanna was made one of the accused. Later, police dropped his name from the array of accused while filing the charge sheet, finding no allegations against him.

During the trial, 11 of the 13 witnesses turned hostile. However, three witnesses— PW-9 (complainant), PW-12 (Naveen D. Sheet), and PW-13 (Girish)— in their statement said that Suraj Revanna was present at the spot and instigated others.

Relying on these depositions, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 CrPC on October 5, 2024, seeking to draw the petitioner, Suraj Revanna, as an additional accused. The trial court allowed the application by an order dated February 7, 2025. Aggrieved by this, Suraj Revanna approached the High Court.

The High Court noted that the evidence brought during the trial was same as that at the time of recording of the statement earlier, thus, did not constitute “higher decree of evidence” required to bring the petitioner back into the “web of proceedings.”

Accordingly, the order arraying Suraj Revanna as an accused was quashed.