Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, K .V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Harjinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2477 of 2025 (@ SLP (Criminal) No. 1891 of 2024)
Decided On : 06-05-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Section 319 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent real perpetrator from escaping trial – Once ocular testimony discloses direct role, Court is obliged to summon person concerned – Trial Court’s Order correctly applied this standard, whereas High Court’s interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. amounts to a pre trial acquittal on disputed facts – Section 319 Cr.P.C. demands evidence stronger than that required even for framing charge – Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an exception to general rule that an accused stands trial only upon charge-sheet and committal; its object is to ensure that trial does not proceed without a participant who, on material now available, appears to share criminal liability – Power is extraordinary and therefore to be exercised with circumspection, yet it is neither illusory nor deferential to investigative conclusions – Once live evidence evinces a prima-facie case stronger than mere suspicion, Court must act – Section 319 Cr.P.C. is designed to ensure that every participant in a crime is brought before Court and its provisions are to be interpreted constructively and purposively, so that true offender does not slip through procedural gaps. (Paras 8 and 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 read with Section 34 – Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Abetment of suicide – Common intention – Power under Section 319 CrPC is triggered not by conjecture but by “evidence” that surfaces in Court – An alibi is a plea in nature of a defence and burden to establish it rests squarely on accused – Here, documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist’s receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved – Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper – To treat them as conclusive at threshold would invert established order of criminal proceedings, requiring Court to pronounce upon a defence before prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence – Abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment – It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction and law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs – Once cognizance is taken and trial commences, investigating agency’s view yields to Court’s independent assessment – If, in midst of that trial, evidence implicating a new participant surfaces, Court is duty-bound to act on it – Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be rendered otiose if an Investigating Officer’s earlier opinion could freeze array of accused for all time – Threshold is not proof beyond reasonable doubt; it is appearance of involvement which is apparent from evidence adduced in the proceeding – That threshold was satisfied here – No infirmity in order of Trial Court – High Court, by elevating unproved defence documents above sworn testimony, adopted an approach that was neither consistent with text of Section 319 Cr.P.C. nor consonant with realities of a case involving a vulnerable victim – Court’s intervention, in effect, foreclosed prosecution from testing alibi and deprived Trial Court of jurisdiction expressly conferred upon it – Order of Trial Court revived. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
By impugned judgment the High Court set aside an order dated 04th July 2022 passed by Trial Court, summoning respondent no. 2 to face trial under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Issue that falls for consideration before Court is whether evidence led justified Trial Court’s exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon respondent no. 2, and whether High Court was right in setting that order aside at threshold.
Findings of Court:
judgment and order dated 21 November 2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRM-M No. 31120 of 2022 is set aside. Order of the Trial Court dated 04 July 2022 summoning respondent no. 2 to stand trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC shall stand revived. Respondent no. 2 shall appear before the Trial Court within four weeks from today and thereafter abide by all further orders of the Trial Court. It will be open to the Trial Court to regulate the conditions of his release, if any application for bail is moved, in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is intended to prevent the real perpetrators of a crime from escaping trial. This power is triggered not by conjecture but by evidence that surfaces during the court proceedings (!) .
The exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires that the evidence presented be stronger than mere suspicion and must establish a prima-facie case of involvement. The evidence must be of such quality that it indicates a participant shares criminal liability, and the court is obliged to act once such evidence is available (!) .
An alibi is a defense plea, and the burden to establish it lies solely on the accused. The documents relied upon to support the alibi are untested until formally proved in court, and their face value alone does not outweigh the evidence implicating the accused (!) (!) .
The court's assessment of evidence, including eyewitness testimony and documentary proof, is crucial. Evidence such as eyewitness statements that directly connect the accused to the offense can justify summoning additional accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (!) (!) .
The investigation's conclusions, including the acceptance of an alibi, do not bind the court once the trial is underway. The court's independent assessment of evidence during trial takes precedence, and new evidence implicating an accused can lead to their summoning, regardless of prior investigation findings (!) .
The law recognizes that certain offenses, like abetment to suicide, may involve a gradual build-up of psychological pressure rather than a single act, and law punishes such build-up wherever and whenever it occurs (!) .
The intervention of higher courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order summoning an accused must be cautious. Such intervention should not amount to a pre-trial acquittal based on untested or unproved defense evidence, especially when the evidence on record supports the summoning (!) (!) .
The purpose of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that all participants sharing criminal liability are brought before the court to achieve a just and complete trial. The power should be exercised constructively and purposively, ensuring that true offenders are not overlooked due to procedural gaps (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the threshold for summoning under Section 319 is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but the appearance of involvement based on evidence presented during the proceeding. This involves a careful and independent evaluation of all relevant evidence (!) (!) .
The court cautions against conflating different incidents or investigation records to prematurely dismiss an accused’s involvement, particularly when direct eyewitness testimony and other substantive evidence are available that support their participation in the alleged offense (!) (!) .
The court underscores that the final judgment on the guilt or innocence of an accused, and the sufficiency of evidence, is a matter for the trial court, which will evaluate all evidence in due course. The role of higher courts is to ensure procedural correctness in the exercise of powers like that under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (!) .
In summary, the document highlights the importance of a careful, evidence-based approach in exercising the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that such powers are to be used constructively to uncover the true perpetrators, and not prematurely or based solely on untested or unproved defense evidence.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal, preferred by the complainant-father (“the appellant”) of the deceased Dharminder Singh, assails the judgment dated 21 November 2023 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (“the High Court”) allowing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 31120 of 2022 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside an order dated 04 July 2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur (“the Trial Court”) summoning Varinder Singh (hereinafter “respondent no. 2”) to face trial under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) in First Information Report No. 51 of 2016 registered at Police Station Amargarh, District Sangrur, Punjab.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
3.1 On 13 March 2016 an acid attack was allegedly committed upon Dharminder Singh by ten persons. That occurrence was recorded as FIR No. 30 of 2016 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 148, 149 and 326-A IPC; respondent no.2 was not named therein.
3.2 On 10 May 2016 at around 8.30 am in the morning, Dharminder Singh and his paternal uncle Jagdev Singh were standing near their abadi land on Jagowal Road when Gurmail Singh, respondent no. 2, Santokh Singh and Iqbal Singh, accompanied by an unidentified person, allegedly stopped their white car and taunted the deceased, stating that he and his family “should die of shame” for not having taken action against the acid-attack assailants.
3.3 The deceased returned home in distress, locked himself in a room, and left the house alone at about 04:00 p.m. When he did not return by evening, a search party found his bicycle, clothing and footwear near the Hussainpur canal. On 13 May 2016 his body was recovered from the canal head at village Salar. The appellant lodged a complaint the same day; FIR No. 51 of 2016 (“the FIR in question”) was registered under Sections 306/34 IPC, naming, inter alia, respondent no. 2.
3.4 During investigation the police accepted the plea of alibi advanced by respondent no. 2, who produced, among other things, a parking-lot slip, outpatient records, a medicine bill and CCTV footage from PGI Chandigarh timed 06:30 a.m. onward on 10 May 2016. Endorsing these materials, the investigating officer filed a report under Section 173 (2) CrPC on 02 August 2016 classifying respondent no. 2 as “innocent”. Consequently, only the remaining accused were committed to the Court of Session.
3.5 On an application by the Public Prosecutor the Trial Court, by order dated 20 January 2017, summoned respondent no. 2 under Section 193 of CrPC. Therefore, Respondent no. 2 successfully challenged that order before the High Court. By the impugned order dated 24 November 2021 the High Court quashed the summoning on the ground that there had been no committal order qua respondent no. 2, while granting liberty to invoke Section 319 CrPC if credible evidence emerged during trial.
3.6 During the trial, on 08 March 2022 the appellant testified as PW-1, narrating the confrontation of 10th May 2016 and hence attributing direct participation to respondent no. 2. The Public Prosecutor relying on the statement of PW-1 as well as on the statement of Jagdev Singh recorded under Section 161 CrPC moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2.
3.7 By order dated 04 July 2022 the Trial Court allowed the application, observing that PW-1’s sworn testimony, corroborated by Jagdev Singh’s statement, disclosed a prima-facie case and that the plea of alibi was a matter for trial. Respondent no. 2 was directed to appear on 02 August 2022 to stand trial alongside the existing accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
3.8 Respondent no. 2 approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, asserting that the Trial Court had disregarded what he described as “scientific and documentary proof” of his whereabouts in Chandigarh at the relevant time and
(1) Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Section 319 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent real perpetrator from escaping trial – Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is triggered not by conjecture bu....
Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Court should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage as expression used is 'such person could be tried’ and not ‘should be tried’.
Court can exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. even on the basis of statement made in examination-in-chief of witness concerned and Court need not wait till cross-examination of such a witness an....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC based on sufficient evidence from the informant, emphasizing the standard of proof required for such su....
Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an e....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
