Supreme Court: In an appeal filed by the father of the deceased against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (‘Trial Court’) summoning the accused to face trial under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), a Division Bench comprising of Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. held that, in view of the purpose and scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), there was no infirmity in the Trial Court’s decision to summon accused 2.
The Court observed that not summoning him would have risked a truncated trial and a potential miscarriage of justice. It further held that the High Court, by placing unproven defence documents above sworn testimony, had adopted an approach, inconsistent with both the statutory mandate of Section 319 CrPC and the broader context of a case involving a vulnerable victim. This intervention, the Court noted, effectively prevented the prosecution from testing the alibi and curtailed the Trial Court’s jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment was set aside. The Trial Court’s order summoning accused 2 to stand trial under Section 306 IPC was restored. The accused was directed to appear before the Trial Court within four weeks and comply with all further directions issued by the court.
Background
On 13-03-2016, an acid attack was allegedly carried out on the deceased by ten individuals, but accused 2 was not named in the FIR. On 10-05-2016, the deceased and his paternal uncle were allegedly confronted by accused 2 and another unidentified individual. They taunted the deceased, suggesting he and his family should feel ashamed for not acting against the acid-attack assailants. Distressed, the deceased returned home, locked himself in a room, and left again around 4:00 p.m. His body was later found on 13-05-2016 near the Hussainpur canal.
FIR was registered under Section 306 read with 34 IPC, naming accused 2. During the investigation, accused 2 presented an alibi with evidence, including a parking slip, medical records, and CCTV footage from 10-05-2016. The police accepted this evidence and filed a report, classifying accused 2 as “innocent.” As a result, only the remaining accused were committed.
However, the Trial Court summoned accused 2 under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’). Accused 2 challenged the order in the High Court, which quashed the summons, citing the lack of a committal order for him. The High Court allowed the possibility of invoking Section 319 CrPC if credible evidence surfaced during the trial.
In March 2022, the father of the deceased testified as witness, describing the confrontation and implicating accused 2. The Public Prosecutor moved to summon him under Section 319 CrPC based on the testimonies. The Trial Court allowed the application, considering the prima facie evidence.
Accused 2 challenged this in the High Court, claiming that the Trial Court had ignored his alibi and documentary proof. Thereafter, the High Court set aside the summoning order, stating that the evidence presented was insufficient under Section 319 CrPC.
The father of the deceased now contended that the High Court erred in evaluating the evidence prematurely, overlooking direct eyewitness accounts, and disregarding the fact that accused 2’s alibi was untested. He argued that the Trial Court’s decision to summon accused 2 was correct, as the evidence was sufficient for him to stand trial for abetment to suicide.
Issue
Whether the evidence justified the Trial Court’s exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC to summon accused 2, and whether the High Court was right in setting that order aside at the threshold.
Analysis and Decision
The Court examined the scope of Section 319(1) of the CrPC and clarified that it empowers a criminal court, once it is seized of a matter, to summon any person whose involvement becomes evident from the evidence that emerges during trial. This provision serves as an exception to the general rule that only those named in the charge sheet stand trial. Its purpose is to ensure that no potentially culpable individual is excluded from the proceedings. While the power under Section 319 is extraordinary and must be exercised with caution, it is not subordinate to the findings of the investigation. If the court, based on live evidence, finds a prima facie case stronger than mere suspicion, it is duty-bound to act.
The Court referred to Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein it was observed that Section 319 CrPC is designed to ensure that every participant in a crime is brought before the Court and its provisions are therefore to be interpreted constructively and purposively, so that the true offender does not slip through procedural gaps.
The Court opined that the power under Section 319 CrPC was not to be invoked based on conjecture, but on “evidence” that emerges during trial proceedings. In the present case, the father of the deceased provided a detailed account of the events of 10-05-2016, stating that accused 2, along with others, stopped a car and confronted the deceased. Using strong words in Punjabi, they allegedly taunted him, saying he and his family should drown themselves for not taking action against the acid-attack perpetrators. He also described the immediate emotional toll on the deceased, how he broke down, isolated himself, and eventually left home, never to return alive.
The Court noted that the primary defence raised by accused 2 rests on a plea of alibi. However, an alibi is a defence in nature, and the burden of proving it lies entirely with the accused. In this case, the documents cited, such as a parking slip, chemist’s receipt, OPD card, and CCTV footage, have not yet been formally proved in court. Until they are subjected to evidentiary scrutiny, they remain unverified and cannot be treated as conclusive. Accepting them at face value at this preliminary stage would disrupt the established course of a criminal trial, effectively requiring the Court to rule on a defence before the prosecution has presented its full case. Even if it was assumed that these documents will eventually be proven, their contents do not decisively counter the prosecution’s case. For instance, the parking slip is timestamped at 6:30 a.m., while the chemist’s receipt and CCTV footage are from 12:09 p.m. The confrontation, however, is alleged to have taken place at 8:30 a.m., a timeframe that still allows for travel from Jagowal to Chandigarh, a distance of approximately ninety kilometres, by private vehicle.
More significantly, the Court emphasised that abetment to suicide is not necessarily a momentary act. It may consist of a sustained build-up of psychological pressure that ultimately drives a person to take their own life. The law is designed to punish that cumulative pressure, regardless of where or when it manifests.
The Court said that the High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC, placed undue reliance on the investigation records and downplayed the incident of 10-05-2016 by characterizing it as mere “teasing.” Such a description, the Court noted, fails to capture both the gravity of the words spoken and their psychological impact. If the allegation is true, telling a physically challenged man and his family that they should die, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a brutal acid attack is far from harmless banter. The Court emphasised the need for sensitivity to the social context, where notions of honour and shame can have profound consequences. Ultimately, it clarified that while the offence must be established at trial, the seriousness of the allegation warranted judicial scrutiny.
The Court concluded that, considering the purpose and scope of Section 319 CrPC, there was no infirmity in the Trial Court’s decision to summon accused 2. On the contrary, failing to summon him would have risked a truncated trial and potential miscarriage of justice. The High Court, by placing unproven defence documents above sworn testimony, adopted an approach inconsistent with both the letter of Section 319 and the context of a case involving a vulnerable victim. Its intervention effectively prevented the prosecution from testing the alibi and curtailed the Trial Court’s statutory jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment was set aside. The Trial Court’s order summoning accused 2 to stand trial under Section 306 IPC, was restored. Accused 2 was directed to appear before the Trial Court within four weeks and comply with its further directions.
[Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029, decided on 06-05-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Vikram Nath
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. G. Balaji, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR, Mr. Chritarth Palli, AOR
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
