Chandar Shekhar Jaysawal @ Sonu Jaysawalv.State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Legal Analysis: Chandar Shekhar Jaysawal @ Sonu Jaysawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 622

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta (author) and one other Judge

Date of Decision: June 3, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6576 of 2023 against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 19th April 2023.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant was not originally named as an accused in the FIR or chargesheet for abetment of suicide of a 17‑year‑old girl. During trial, the victim’s mother produced a memory card allegedly containing a second suicide note and pre‑death conversations. On this basis, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to arraign the appellant as an additional accused. The Sessions Court allowed the application, and the High Court dismissed the revision petition. The Supreme Court set aside the orders, holding that the requirements for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC as laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab were not satisfied. The Court found that the memory card was recovered belatedly without any credible explanation, the chain of custody was suspect, the contents lacked a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and the victim’s father (PW1) made no mention of the memory card. Consequently, there was no “strong and cogent evidence” creating more than a prima facie case against the appellant.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Chandar Shekhar Jaysawal @ Sonu Jaysawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 622

Criminal Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6576 of 2023

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta (author) and one other Judge

Date of Decision: June 3, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 19th April 2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. [not specified], dismissing the revision against the Sessions Court order dated 21st December 2019 allowing the application under Section 319 CrPC.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319 (power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence), Section 173(8) (further investigation and protest petition), Section 306 (abetment of suicide), Section 305 (abetment of suicide of child or insane person).

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 (abetment of suicide), Section 305 (abetment of suicide of child or person of unsound mind).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 (dying declaration/admissibility of statements of deceased person), Section 65B (admissibility of electronic records).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Five‑Judge Bench) – Power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly. It requires “strong and cogent evidence” creating more than a prima facie case – not merely probability of complicity, but evidence that if unrebutted would lead to conviction. The test is higher than at the time of framing of charge.

• Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433 – For abetment of suicide, there must be a live link or nexus between the accused’s act and the suicide; remoteness of culpable acts falls short.

• S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190 – There must be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, leaving her with no option.

3. Relevant Facts

A 17‑year‑old girl committed suicide on 25th December 2015. On the same day, her father (PW1) informed the police. The police found a suicide note pasted on the wall, which stated that the victim had to take the step because of “Pintu Sarkar”. The note did not mention the appellant.

On 28th December 2015, the victim’s father submitted a handwritten complaint alleging that one Pintu Sarkar and his wife Ragini instigated the suicide. FIR No. 1187 of 2015 was registered under Section 306 IPC. Upon investigation, a chargesheet dated 5th February 2016 was filed only against Pintu Sarkar under Section 305 IPC (abetment of suicide of a child). The appellant was not named in the complaints or the chargesheet.

During trial, the father (PW1) testified in September‑October 2017 that the appellant (Sonu) along with Pintu and Ragini used to talk obscenely with the victim and blackmail her. The mother (PW2) testified that after the victim’s death she brought the victim’s bag home and found a purse, a memory card, and a suicide note. She claimed that the Investigating Officer refused to take them on record, saying that evidence should be given in court.

The memory card allegedly contained an image of a second suicide note (the first note was the one pasted on the wall) stating that both Pintu and the appellant were troubling her, that Pintu wanted to marry her forcefully, and that the appellant “has done a lot of wrong” with her. It also contained pre‑death conversations where the victim stated that the appellant had forced himself upon her.

On 12th December 2017, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed seeking arraignment of the appellant and Ragini as additional accused. The Sessions Court allowed the application on 21st December 2019. The appellant’s revision petition was dismissed by the High Court on 19th April 2023. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the power under Section 319 CrPC was correctly exercised.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether the material on record – particularly the memory card and its contents – constituted “strong and cogent evidence” within the meaning of Hardeep Singh to justify summoning the appellant as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.

Issue No. 2: Whether the delay in production of the memory card, the absence of a seizure memo, the lack of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and the questionable chain of custody vitiated the reliability of the evidence.

Issue No. 3: Whether the High Court erred in affirming the Sessions Court order.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The test under Section 319 CrPC requires “strong and cogent evidence” – higher than prima facie case at charge (Paras 13-14).

The Court quoted Hardeep Singh at length. The power under Section 319 is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity. The test is one where the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. This standard is higher than the prima facie case required at the time of framing charge.

B. The memory card evidence was unreliable due to delayed discovery and lack of chain of custody (Paras 17-21).

The Court identified multiple defects:

• PW2 did not disclose the date of discovery of the memory card, the manner of recovery, how its contents were accessed, or whether any person assisted her.

• PW1 (the father) made no mention whatsoever of the memory card in his examination‑in‑chief, suggesting he was entirely unaware of it.

• The police did not prepare any seizure memo of the victim’s bag. There was no inventory of articles found in the bag. If the bag had been properly seized, the memory card would have been found and seized at that time.

• The mother was allowed to take the bag home without inventory. She did not explain why she did not check the bag for months. Her conduct was found to be “quite unnatural” for a grieving mother.

• The chain of custody was suspect. There was no evidence that the bag was kept in a secure place after being taken home, leaving open the possibility of planting or fabrication.

C. The memory card contents lacked a Section 65B certificate and the suicide note had no date (Paras 22-23).

The material was produced without the certificate required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act for electronic records. Even assuming admissibility under Section 32 (dying declaration), the truth of the contents had to be established by corroboration, explanation of delay, and proof of authenticity. The Court noted that the second suicide note did not mention any date. It was left to guess when precisely the victim decided to end her life. There was also a contradiction between the two suicide notes (first note mentioning only Pintu, second note mentioning both), which the Court did not resolve but noted as a factor affecting reliability.

D. Ingredients of abetment of suicide require a live link between the accused’s conduct and the suicide (Para 24).

The Court reiterated that for an offence under Sections 305/306 IPC, there must be a live link or nexus between the alleged abetment and the suicide. Remoteness of culpable acts falls short. There must be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, leaving her with no option. In this case, even assuming the appellant’s alleged conduct, the Court found that the evidence was too weak and unreliable to establish such a live link at the Section 319 stage.

E. The test for Section 319 was not satisfied; orders set aside (Paras 25-27).

The Court concluded that the material on record did not meet the threshold of “strong and cogent evidence”. The delay in production, absence of seizure memo, lack of Section 65B certificate, and suspicious chain of custody raised serious doubt about the genuineness of the memory card. Therefore, the orders of the Sessions Court and the High Court summoning the appellant were set aside.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• In an application under Section 319 CrPC, when the additional evidence sought to be relied upon is an electronic record (memory card) produced belatedly by a witness without any seizure memo, the court must carefully scrutinise the chain of custody, the explanation for delay, and compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The absence of a certificate under Section 65B is a serious defect affecting admissibility.

• The conduct of a witness in producing electronic evidence months after the incident without credible explanation, and without informing other family members, is a factor that can be used to doubt the authenticity of the evidence.

• The power under Section 319 CrPC, being extraordinary, should not be exercised on the basis of evidence that is inherently unreliable or whose provenance is suspect. The court must be satisfied that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction – not merely that it creates some suspicion.

• A contradiction between two versions of the same victim (e.g., two suicide notes) does not per se make the later one inadmissible, but the court must weigh which version is more probable. In the absence of corroboration and with suspicious circumstances, the later version may be rejected at the stage of Section 319 itself.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court first noted that the appellant did not figure in the complaints, the FIR, or the chargesheet. It was only during trial that the mother produced the memory card. The father’s testimony (PW1) mentioned the appellant’s involvement, but the father did not lodge any protest petition under Section 173(8) CrPC when the chargesheet omitted the appellant. However, the Court treated that omission as a possible human error rather than holding it against the witness.

The Court then focused on the memory card. It observed that the police had not seized the victim’s bag. No seizure memo existed. The mother took the bag home without any inventory. She did not explain when exactly she found the memory card, how she accessed its contents, or who assisted her. Her conduct was “quite unnatural” – a reasonable mother would have checked the bag immediately, not months later.

The father made no mention of the memory card at all. This omission was significant because if such a crucial piece of evidence existed, he would likely have known about it and testified accordingly. The chain of custody was broken – the bag was not kept in a secure place, raising the possibility of fabrication.

The Court also noted the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Electronic records are not admissible without such a certificate. The prosecution had not even attempted to produce one. The second suicide note did not bear any date, making it impossible to determine whether it was written on the day of suicide or earlier. There was a clear contradiction between the first suicide note (only Pintu) and the second note (Pintu and appellant). The Court did not resolve the contradiction but held that in such circumstances, the evidence did not meet the high threshold for Section 319.

Applying the test from Hardeep Singh, the Court concluded that there was no “strong and cogent evidence” against the appellant. The Sessions Court and the High Court had erred in exercising the power under Section 319. The orders were set aside.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a careful application of the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh. It correctly emphasises that Section 319 is an extraordinary power and must be exercised sparingly, based on evidence that is strong and cogent, not merely probable. The Court’s scrutiny of the memory card – the delay in production, the absence of a seizure memo, the lack of a Section 65B certificate, the broken chain of custody – is thorough and legally sound. The Court also rightly points out the unnatural conduct of the mother (PW2) in not checking the bag for months, which is a valid factor in assessing reliability. The distinction between the two suicide notes and the absence of a date on the second note further undermines the prosecution’s case.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly address the testimony of PW1, who stated that he had scolded the appellant and was aware of his misconduct. That testimony, if believed, could have been used to support the application under Section 319 even without the memory card. However, the Court chose to rely primarily on the unreliability of the memory card. It also did not discuss whether the contents of the memory card, even if admissible, would have satisfied the “strong and cogent evidence” test. The judgment might be seen as setting a very high bar for Section 319 in cases where electronic evidence is produced late. While this protects against false implication, it may also allow genuine culprits to escape if the police fail to seize evidence properly.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all cases where an application under Section 319 CrPC is based on electronic evidence produced belatedly. It reinforces that the prosecution must prove the chain of custody and comply with Section 65B. It also emphasises that the conduct of witnesses in producing evidence late must be explained credibly. The judgment serves as a reminder to trial courts that Section 319 is not to be used casually; the evidence against the proposed accused must be of a high standard.

9. Final Outcome

The Criminal Appeal was allowed.

• The impugned order of the High Court dated 19th April 2023 dismissing the revision petition was set aside.

• The order of the Sessions Court dated 21st December 2019 allowing the application under Section 319 CrPC qua the appellant was also set aside.

• The appellant shall not be arraigned as an additional accused in the trial.

• The Sessions Court was directed not to be influenced by any observations made in this judgment and to proceed with the trial against the existing accused (Pintu Sarkar) independently.

• Pending applications stood disposed of.

10. Practical Application

For a person summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC: Immediately challenge the order by filing a revision petition before the High Court. Argue that the evidence relied upon does not meet the “strong and cogent” test. If the evidence includes electronic records (memory card, CD, mobile phone data), examine whether there is a seizure memo, whether the chain of custody is intact, and whether a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has been produced. If the evidence was produced belatedly without explanation, rely on this judgment to argue that the court should not exercise its discretionary power under Section 319.

For a prosecutor seeking to summon additional accused under Section 319: Before moving the application, ensure that the evidence against the proposed accused is truly strong and cogent – not merely consistent with guilt but such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction. If the evidence is electronic, ensure that a proper seizure memo exists, the chain of custody is documented, and a certificate under Section 65B is obtained. If the evidence was discovered late, provide a credible explanation for the delay. Examine whether the victim’s family members are consistent in their testimony. If there are contradictions or omissions (e.g., a father not mentioning the proposed accused in his first statement), be prepared to address them.

For a trial court judge considering a Section 319 application: Do not treat Section 319 as a routine provision. Apply the Hardeep Singh test strictly. Assess whether the evidence against the proposed accused is “strong and cogent” – a higher standard than prima facie case at charge. Scrutinise electronic evidence carefully: require a Section 65B certificate, examine the seizure memo, and inquire into the chain of custody. If the evidence was produced late, ask the witness to explain the delay. If the explanation is unconvincing, reject the application. If you allow the application, record detailed reasons showing that the evidence meets the high threshold.

For a defence lawyer challenging a Section 319 order: File a revision petition promptly. Highlight the following: (i) the evidence does not meet the Hardeep Singh standard; (ii) the proposed accused was not named in the FIR or chargesheet; (iii) there are inconsistencies or improvements in the testimony of witnesses; (iv) electronic evidence lacks a Section 65B certificate; (v) the chain of custody is broken; (vi) there is unexplained delay in production of key evidence. Cite this judgment and Hardeep Singh.

For an investigating officer: When seizing electronic evidence (mobile phone, memory card, laptop), always prepare a detailed seizure memo describing the device, its condition, and the place of seizure. Seal the device in a tamper‑proof bag. Maintain a proper chain of custody log. If you cannot seize the device immediately because it is with a family member, obtain a proper acknowledgment. Do not allow witnesses to take potential evidence home without inventory. Obtain a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act from a competent person (usually a forensic expert or the person who extracted the data). These steps will prevent the evidence from being excluded at trial.

11. Court Lines

Line 1 (Standard for Section 319 – Para 13, quoting Hardeep Singh):
“Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary 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 person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.”

Line 2 (Higher threshold – Para 13, quoting Hardeep Singh):
“Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is … that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.”

Line 3 (Suspicious chain of custody – Para 20):
“The bag of the victim was found in the room where she passed away. Surprisingly, there is no seizure of the bag by the police. At least nothing is on record. Had there been a seizure memo/panchnama following inventory of the articles found in the bag, the memory card would definitely have been found and seized. In the absence of such seizure memo and seizure of the memory card, the later discovery becomes weak and unreliable.”

Line 4 (Unnatural conduct – Para 20):
“Being the mother of the victim, natural human conduct would matter; however, we find her conduct to be quite unnatural notwithstanding the agony and trauma that she must have suffered having lost her daughter. In fine, there is no credible reason for the memory card to surface late and the conduct of PW 2 in producing the memory card does not appeal to us to be above board.”

Line 5 (Ingredients of abetment – Para 24):
“A reading of Section 306 would manifest that the offence punishable is one of abatement of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abatement being the propelling causative factor. … Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abatement.”

Line 6 (Test not satisfied – Para 25):
“We are, thus, satisfied that the test of more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction, being the law propounded in Hardeep Singh (supra), is not fulfilled in the present case.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a person who has been summoned under Section 319 CrPC based on late‑produced electronic evidence: Immediately file a revision petition before the High Court. Argue that the evidence does not meet the Hardeep Singh standard. Point out the absence of a seizure memo, the broken chain of custody, the lack of a Section 65B certificate, and the unexplained delay in production. Emphasise that the court below exercised its extraordinary power casually without applying the correct test. Cite this judgment and Hardeep Singh. If the revision is dismissed, file an SLP before the Supreme Court.

For a prosecutor opposing a revision petition against a Section 319 order: Defend the order by showing that the evidence is indeed strong and cogent. If the evidence is electronic, produce the seizure memo and the Section 65B certificate. Explain the delay in production – e.g., the witness was traumatised and only later discovered the memory card. Argue that the trial court applied the correct test and that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Distinguish this case from Hardeep Singh if the evidence in your case is more reliable.

For a defence lawyer in a trial where Section 319 is invoked against your client: Cross‑examine the witness who produced the late evidence. Bring out the absence of a seizure memo, the unexplained delay, the possibility of tampering, and the lack of a Section 65B certificate. Highlight any contradictions between the witness’s earlier statements (under Section 161 CrPC) and court testimony. Argue that the application under Section 319 should be dismissed because the evidence does not meet the required standard.

For a trial court judge: When an application under Section 319 is filed, do not allow it mechanically. Hold a preliminary inquiry or at least hear the proposed accused (if already served with notice). Assess the evidence de novo – do not merely rely on the fact that the trial court earlier framed charges against the existing accused. If the proposed accused was not named in the FIR or chargesheet, treat that as a relevant factor (though not determinative). If the evidence is electronic, insist on production of the original device or a certified copy with a Section 65B certificate. If the chain of custody is suspect, reject the application. Record detailed reasons for your decision.

For an appellate court (High Court or Supreme Court): In cases challenging a Section 319 order, examine whether the trial court applied the correct standard. If the trial court has allowed the application on the basis of weak or unreliable evidence (e.g., late‑produced memory card without seizure memo), set aside the order. Do not defer to the trial court’s discretion if the evidence clearly does not meet the Hardeep Singh test. Conversely, if the trial court has rejected a Section 319 application, do not interfere unless the decision is perverse.