SARTAJ SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA ETC & Anr.

#4. The reasons assigned by the High Court for quashing the order of the trial Court are unsustainable in law and on facts. At this stage, the High Court was not required to appreciate the deposition of the injured eye witness and what was required to be considered at this stage was whether there is any prima facie case and not whether on the basis of such material the proposed accused is likely to be convicted or not and/or whatever is stated by the injured eye witness in his examination-in-chief is A B C D E F G H 90 A B C D SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R. exaggeration or not. The aforesaid aspects are required to be considered during the trial and while appreciating the entire evidence on record. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court summoning the accused to face the trial in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC, on the reasoning mentioned hereinabove. Even the observations made by the High Court referred are on probability. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law and on facts and is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 319 CrPC. [Para 8.1][112-E-H; 113-A]