Supreme Court clarifies the procedure for Section 319 CrPC applications: Asim Akhtar vs. State of West Bengal (2024) INSC 794 (18 October 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 18 October 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 794

Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Can a trial court be forced to decide an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the cross-examination of key witnesses? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, clarifying the discretionary powers of trial courts in such matters. The core issue revolved around whether a trial court must mandatorily decide an application to summon additional accused based solely on the examination-in-chief of witnesses, or if it can wait for cross-examination before making a decision. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, with Justice Vikram Nath authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by respondent no. 2, alleging that the appellant, Asim Akhtar, attempted to kidnap him. The FIR was registered on 11 October 2017, under Sections 366, 323, and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1950. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 8 February 2019, under the same sections.

During the trial, the examination-in-chief of the victim (respondent no. 2), his mother (PW2), and his father (PW3) was recorded on 29 February 2020. However, their cross-examination was deferred based on an application by the accused-appellant. Subsequently, on 7 March 2020, respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the parents of the accused-appellant. Despite receiving summons, the three prosecution witnesses failed to appear for cross-examination. The Trial Court, on 14 September 2020, noted that the witnesses were willfully disobeying court orders and scheduled cross-examination for the next date, with a decision on the Section 319 application to be made after all witnesses were examined.

On 15 September 2020, the witnesses again remained absent and sought an adjournment, citing the COVID-19 pandemic. The Trial Court noted the witnesses’ past conduct of not appearing for cross-examination despite summons. The complainant insisted that the Section 319 application be decided before cross-examination. The Public Prosecutor also opposed this application. The Trial Court fixed 29 September 2020 for cross-examination and expressed its intent to issue bailable warrants against the witnesses.

On 21 September 2020, the complainant filed another application seeking to add offenses under Sections 354 and 354B of the IPC. The prosecution witnesses were present but refused to be cross-examined until the Section 319 application was decided. The Trial Court closed the prosecution evidence due to the witnesses’ refusal to be cross-examined and rejected the Section 319 application, stating that the evidence was inadmissible without cross-examination. The Trial Court then acquitted the accused-appellant under Section 232 of the CrPC, finding it to be a case of no evidence.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, after recording the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses, deferred their cross-examination. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the parents of the accused. The prosecution witnesses repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination, insisting that the application under Section 319 CrPC be decided first. The Trial Court, noting the witnesses’ conduct and the fact that the examination-in-chief was not tested by cross-examination, closed the prosecution evidence and acquitted the accused under Section 232 of the CrPC.

Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s decision, respondent no. 2 appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The High Court allowed the appeal, relying on a Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92], which stated that the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief. The High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case to the Trial Court, directing it to first decide the application under Section 319 CrPC and then proceed with the trial.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the power of the court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offense. This section states:

“Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.”

The High Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92], which clarified that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the interpretation of the same.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The Trial Court was correct in closing the prosecution evidence as the witnesses repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination.
• The Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC due to the lack of admissible evidence.
• The High Court erred in mandating that the application under Section 319 CrPC must be decided before cross-examination.
• The judgment in Hardeep Singh (supra) does not mandate that the application under Section 319 CrPC must be decided before cross-examination.

Respondent’s Submissions (as reflected in the High Court’s decision):

• The High Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (supra) to argue that the application under Section 319 CrPC should be decided even before cross-examination.
• The High Court believed that the Trial Court should have decided the Section 319 application based on the examination-in-chief of the witnesses.

The appellant argued that the Trial Court had correctly exercised its discretion in closing the prosecution evidence due to the non-cooperation of the witnesses and that the High Court misinterpreted the Hardeep Singh judgment. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the High Court’s interpretation of the Hardeep Singh judgment was correct and that the Trial Court should have decided the Section 319 application before closing the prosecution evidence.

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in highlighting the discretionary power of the trial court, which is not curtailed by the Hardeep Singh judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Trial Court and remanding the case with the direction to first decide the application under Section 319 CrPC.

The sub-issue that the court dealt with under this issue was whether the application under Section 319 CrPC must be decided before the cross-examination of witnesses.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the power of the court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offense.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92]*: The Supreme Court clarified that this judgment does not mandate that the application under Section 319 CrPC must be decided before cross-examination. It only clarifies that the examination-in-chief is part of the evidence and can be relied upon to decide an application under Section 319 CrPC, but it does not take away the discretion of the Trial Court to wait for the cross-examination.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Trial Court’s discretion to decide on the timing of the Section 319 CrPC application.
• The non-cooperative behavior of the prosecution witnesses.
• The correct interpretation of the Hardeep Singh judgment.
• The limited role of the complainant in a state case.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court emphasized the facts of the case, particularly the conduct of the witnesses, while also considering the legal interpretation of Section 319 CrPC and the Hardeep Singh judgment.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the Hardeep Singh judgment mandated the decision on the application under Section 319 CrPC before cross-examination, but rejected it. The Court reasoned that the judgment only clarified that the examination-in-chief is part of the evidence and can be relied upon to decide an application under Section 319 CrPC, but it does not take away the discretion of the Trial Court to wait for the cross-examination.

The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court was correct in closing the prosecution evidence and acquitting the accused under Section 232 of the CrPC. The Court stated that the Trial Court had tried its best to ensure the presence of the witnesses for cross-examination, but they repeatedly failed to appear. The Court also emphasized that the complainant does not have a mandatory right to insist that an application be decided in a particular manner. The Court quoted the following from the judgment: “In fact, Examination -in-Chief untested by Cross Examination, undoubtedly in itself, is an evidence.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench comprised of two judges and the opinion was authored by Justice Vikram Nath.

Key Takeaways

• Trial Courts have the discretion to decide whether to address an application under Section 319 CrPC before or after the cross-examination of witnesses.
• The judgment in Hardeep Singh (supra) does not mandate that the application under Section 319 CrPC must be decided before cross-examination.
• Prosecution witnesses cannot dictate the procedure of the trial by insisting on the decision of certain applications before appearing for cross-examination.
• Complainants have a limited role in state-prosecuted cases and cannot act as Public Prosecutors.

This judgment clarifies the discretionary powers of trial courts in handling applications under Section 319 CrPC. It also sets a precedent that prosecution witnesses cannot stall trial proceedings by refusing to appear for cross-examination. This decision reinforces the importance of the cross-examination process in the judicial system.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of the Trial Court, acquitting the accused-appellant.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief, but it does not mandate that it must be decided before cross-examination. The Trial Court has the discretion to decide whether to wait for cross-examination or not. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the Hardeep Singh judgment and reinforces the discretionary powers of the Trial Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the Trial Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The Court clarified that the Hardeep Singh judgment does not mandate that an application under Section 319 CrPC must be decided before cross-examination. The Supreme Court emphasized the discretionary powers of the Trial Court and the limited role of the complainant in state cases. This judgment provides clarity on the procedure for handling applications under Section 319 CrPC and ensures that trial courts are not bound by the insistence of prosecution witnesses to decide such applications before cross-examination.

Category

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Category: Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Trial Procedure

FAQ

Q: What is Section 319 of the CrPC?

A: Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allows a court to proceed against any person who appears to be guilty of an offense, even if they were not initially named as an accused in the case.

Q: Does the court have to decide an application under Section 319 CrPC before the cross-examination of witnesses?

A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that the trial court has the discretion to decide whether to address the application under Section 319 CrPC before or after the cross-examination of witnesses. The judgment in Hardeep Singh (supra) does not mandate that the application under Section 319 CrPC must be decided before cross-examination.

Q: What happens if prosecution witnesses refuse to appear for cross-examination?

A: If prosecution witnesses refuse to appear for cross-examination, the trial court may close the prosecution evidence, as it did in this case. The court is not bound to wait indefinitely for the witnesses to appear.

Q: What is the role of a complainant in a state-prosecuted case?

A: The complainant has a limited role in a state-prosecuted case. They cannot act as a Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and cannot dictate the procedure of the trial.

Q: What was the final decision of the Supreme Court in this case?

A: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the Trial Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The Court clarified that the Hardeep Singh judgment does not mandate that an application under Section 319 CrPC must be decided before cross-examination.