Date of the Judgment: May 06, 2025
The Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court’s order to summon an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for abetment to suicide. This case, Harjinder Singh vs. The State of Punjab & Anr., revolves around the tragic death of Dharminder Singh, who allegedly committed suicide after being taunted by the accused, Varinder Singh (respondent no. 2), and others. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of considering eyewitness testimony and the potential impact of psychological pressure in cases of abetment to suicide.
Case Background
The case originates from an incident on March 13, 2016, when Dharminder Singh was allegedly attacked with acid by ten individuals. Following this, on May 10, 2016, Dharminder Singh and his uncle, Jagdev Singh, were allegedly confronted by Gurmail Singh, Varinder Singh (respondent no. 2), Santokh Singh, Iqbal Singh, and an unidentified person. These individuals allegedly taunted Dharminder, stating that he and his family “should die of shame” for not taking action against the acid-attack perpetrators.
Distressed by this confrontation, Dharminder Singh returned home, secluded himself, and later disappeared. His body was found in a canal on May 13, 2016. Subsequently, a complaint was lodged, leading to the registration of FIR No. 51 of 2016 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), naming respondent no. 2, among others.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 13, 2016 | Acid attack on Dharminder Singh (FIR No. 30 of 2016). |
| May 10, 2016 | Dharminder Singh and Jagdev Singh confronted and taunted by the accused. |
| May 13, 2016 | Dharminder Singh’s body recovered from the canal; FIR No. 51 of 2016 registered. |
| August 2, 2016 | Police filed a report under Section 173(2) CrPC, classifying respondent no. 2 as “innocent.” |
| January 20, 2017 | Trial Court summoned respondent no. 2 under Section 193 of CrPC. |
| November 24, 2021 | High Court quashed the summoning order, granting liberty to invoke Section 319 CrPC if credible evidence emerged during trial. |
| March 8, 2022 | Harjinder Singh (PW-1) testified, narrating the confrontation of May 10, 2016. |
| July 4, 2022 | Trial Court allowed the application under Section 319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2. |
| August 2, 2022 | Respondent no. 2 was directed to appear before Trial Court. |
| November 21, 2023 | High Court set aside the summoning order. |
| May 6, 2025 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and sets aside the High Court order dated November 21, 2023. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the police accepted respondent no. 2’s alibi, which included a parking-lot slip, outpatient records, a medicine bill, and CCTV footage from PGI Chandigarh, and classified him as “innocent” in their report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. However, the Trial Court, acting on an application by the Public Prosecutor, summoned respondent no. 2 under Section 193 of the CrPC. This order was later quashed by the High Court, which allowed for the invocation of Section 319 CrPC if credible evidence emerged during the trial.
During the trial, the appellant (PW-1) testified about the confrontation on May 10, 2016, directly implicating respondent no. 2. Based on this testimony and the statement of Jagdev Singh, the Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2. The Trial Court allowed this application, finding a prima facie case based on the sworn testimony of PW-1 and the statement of Jagdev Singh.
Respondent no. 2 then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the Trial Court disregarded “scientific and documentary proof” of his whereabouts in Chandigarh. The High Court sided with respondent no. 2, setting aside the summoning order, concluding that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for invoking Section 319 CrPC.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court focused on Section 319(1) of the CrPC, which empowers a criminal court to proceed against any person who appears to be guilty of an offense, even if they were not initially accused. The section states:
“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. (1) 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 Court emphasized that this provision is an exception to the general rule that an accused stands trial only upon a charge-sheet and committal. Its purpose is to ensure that all individuals complicit in a crime are brought to justice. The power is extraordinary and must be exercised with caution, but it is not merely symbolic. If live evidence presents a prima facie case stronger than mere suspicion, the Court is obligated to act.
The Supreme Court also referred to its Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], which underscored that Section 319 CrPC is designed to ensure that every participant in a crime is brought before the Court. The provisions should be interpreted constructively to prevent true offenders from escaping justice due to procedural gaps.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Harjinder Singh):
- ✓ The police conflated the acid attack incident (FIR 30/2016) with the incident of May 10, 2016, which forms the basis of the current FIR. Respondent no. 2’s alibi only pertains to the March 10 incident and should not exonerate him from the May 10 incident.
- ✓ Respondent no. 2 has not provided a convincing alibi for May 10, 2016. The documents he relies on (parking ticket, OPD card, CCTV clip) were not presented before the Trial Court and have not been cross-examined.
- ✓ The eyewitness account of Jagdev Singh corroborates the testimony of PW-1, establishing a prima facie case that meets the threshold for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC.
- ✓ The High Court underestimated the significance of the May 10 confrontation by characterizing it as mere “teasing,” thereby overlooking the independent offense of abetment to suicide.
- ✓ The High Court prematurely evaluated an unproven alibi based on investigation-stage material, ignoring the principle that the burden of proving an alibi lies with the accused.
- ✓ Section 319 CrPC is intended to prevent the real perpetrator from escaping trial. The Trial Court correctly applied this standard, while the High Court’s interference amounts to a pre-trial acquittal on disputed facts.
Respondents’ Arguments (State of Punjab & Varinder Singh):
- ✓ The police investigation, supported by various documents and records, indicates that respondent no. 2 was at PGI Chandigarh on May 10, 2016. This is corroborated by statements from the parking attendant and chemist, as well as a village-level inquiry.
- ✓ Section 319 CrPC requires evidence stronger than that needed for framing a charge. PW-1’s testimony merely reiterates the FIR narrative, and Jagdev Singh’s statement is inadmissible until he testifies.
- ✓ The time-distance between Jagowal and Chandigarh supports the alibi, making respondent no. 2’s presence at the village confrontation improbable.
- ✓ The Trial Court ignored the “scientific and documentary” evidence and treated the untested alibi as a matter for trial, reversing the investigative conclusion without sufficient contra-proof.
- ✓ Conflating the acid-attack FIR with the present FIR has led to misplaced suspicion, and repeated attempts to summon respondent no. 2 amount to harassment.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondents’ Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Alibi of Respondent No. 2 |
✓ Alibi materials relate to March 10, not May 10 incident. ✓ No cogent alibi for May 10, 2016. ✓ Documents not exhibited or cross-examined. |
✓ Parking slip, OPD documentation, medical-store bill, CCTV footage support alibi. ✓ Statements of parking-attendant and chemist corroborate alibi. ✓ Village-level inquiry corroborates alibi. |
| Strength of Evidence for Section 319 CrPC |
✓ Eye-witness Jagdev Singh corroborates PW-1’s testimony. ✓ Testimony constitutes prima-facie “evidence.” |
✓ Section 319 CrPC demands stronger evidence than for framing a charge. ✓ PW-1’s testimony reiterates FIR narrative. ✓ Jagdev Singh’s version remains a Section 161 statement. |
| Nature of the Incident |
✓ High Court undervalued the independent offence of abetment to suicide. ✓ Confrontation of May 10 was not mere “teasing.” |
✓ Conflating acid-attack FIR with present FIR leads to misplaced suspicion. |
| Trial Court’s Order |
✓ Trial Court’s order of July 4, 2022, correctly applied Section 319 CrPC. ✓ High Court’s interference amounts to a pre-trial acquittal on disputed facts. |
✓ Trial Court ignored “scientific and documentary” evidence. ✓ Trial Court treated untested alibi as a matter for trial. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the evidence justified the Trial Court’s exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2.
- Whether the High Court was right in setting that order aside at the threshold.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence justified the Trial Court’s exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2. | Yes, the evidence justified the Trial Court’s decision. | The sworn testimony of PW-1, corroborated by Jagdev Singh’s statement, established a prima facie case. The alibi presented by respondent no. 2 was not yet proven and should be tested during the trial. |
| Whether the High Court was right in setting that order aside at the threshold. | No, the High Court was not right in setting aside the order. | The High Court prematurely evaluated the unproven alibi and overlooked the direct eyewitness evidence. The High Court’s intervention foreclosed the prosecution from testing the alibi and deprived the Trial Court of its jurisdiction. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | Interpreting Section 319 CrPC constructively and purposively to ensure that the true offender does not slip through procedural gaps. |
| Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 107] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Interpreting Section 306 IPC regarding abetment to suicide. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Appellant | Respondent | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alibi of Respondent No. 2 | Challenged the validity and relevance of the alibi. | Presented documentary evidence (parking slip, medical records, CCTV footage) to support the alibi. | The Court found that the alibi was not yet proven and needed to be tested during the trial. The documents were considered unproven pieces of paper until formally presented and tested. |
| Strength of Evidence for Section 319 CrPC | Argued that the eyewitness testimony of PW-1 and Jagdev Singh established a prima facie case. | Contended that the evidence was not strong enough to meet the threshold for Section 319 CrPC. | The Court held that the eyewitness testimony constituted substantive evidence and satisfied the threshold for summoning under Section 319 CrPC. |
| Nature of the Incident | Argued that the High Court undervalued the seriousness of the incident and its impact on the deceased. | Characterized the incident as mere “teasing.” | The Court disagreed with the High Court’s characterization, emphasizing the potential psychological impact of the taunts, especially in the context of the acid attack. |
| Trial Court’s Order | Supported the Trial Court’s decision to summon respondent no. 2. | Argued that the Trial Court ignored “scientific and documentary” evidence. | The Court upheld the Trial Court’s order, stating that the High Court’s interference was premature and inconsistent with the purpose of Section 319 CrPC. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that Section 319 CrPC should be interpreted constructively to ensure that the true offender does not escape justice due to procedural gaps.
- ✓ Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 107]: The Court referred to this case for interpreting Section 306 IPC regarding abetment to suicide, indicating that the Trial Court should consider the principles laid down in this case while deciding whether the offense is established.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair trial and prevent potential offenders from escaping justice due to procedural gaps. Several factors weighed heavily in the Court’s reasoning:
- ✓ Eyewitness Testimony: The sworn testimony of PW-1, corroborated by the statement of Jagdev Singh, provided direct evidence implicating respondent no. 2 in the events leading to Dharminder Singh’s suicide.
- ✓ Premature Evaluation of Alibi: The High Court’s reliance on unproven defense documents (parking slip, medical records, CCTV footage) was considered premature. The Court emphasized that the alibi needed to be formally proven and tested during the trial.
- ✓ Psychological Impact: The Court recognized the potential psychological impact of the taunts, especially in the context of the acid attack. The Court noted that telling a physically challenged man that he and his family should die, immediately after a grievous acid attack, is not banter.
- ✓ Purpose of Section 319 CrPC: The Court emphasized that Section 319 CrPC is intended to prevent the real perpetrator from escaping trial. Non-summoning of respondent no. 2 would have risked a truncated trial and a possible failure of justice.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for Fair Trial | 30% |
| Importance of Eyewitness Testimony | 25% |
| Relevance of Psychological Impact | 25% |
| Proper Application of Section 319 CrPC | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Importance of Eyewitness Testimony: Sworn testimony in court carries significant weight and can be the basis for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
- ✓ Burden of Proving Alibi: The burden to establish an alibi rests squarely on the accused, and it must be proven through formal evidence presented and tested during the trial.
- ✓ Scope of Section 319 CrPC: This section is a critical tool for ensuring that all individuals complicit in a crime are brought to justice, and courts must not hesitate to use it when evidence surfaces during the trial.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed respondent no. 2 to appear before the Trial Court within four weeks from May 6, 2025, and to abide by all further orders of the Trial Court. The Trial Court was given the discretion to regulate the conditions of his release, if any application for bail is moved, in accordance with law.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 CrPC is triggered by “evidence” that surfaces in Court, and the Court must act when live evidence evinces a prima facie case stronger than mere suspicion. The Court also reiterated that an alibi is a plea in the nature of a defense, and the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Harjinder Singh vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. underscores the importance of ensuring a fair trial and preventing potential offenders from escaping justice due to procedural gaps. The Court emphasized the significance of eyewitness testimony, the burden of proving an alibi, and the scope of Section 319 CrPC in bringing all complicit individuals to justice.