HARBHAJAN SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 1015 · Decided: 29-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 1015 
HARBHAJAN SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1351 of 2009) 
JULY 29, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Exercise of 
power under - Suicide - Dying declaration - Charge-sheet 
against appellant no.2's brother - Application u/s.319 -
C 
Appellants summoned by Sessions Judge as additional 
accused - Justification of - Held: On facts, justified - In the 
dying declaration, not only appellant no.2's brother but the 
appellants too were named as persons responsible for death 
of the deceased - May be the appellants were not charge-
D 
;. 
sheeted, but the same, by itself, was not sufficient ground for 
the Sessions Judge to decline to exercise its jurisdictien to 
add appellants as accused for trying them for offences which 
appeared to it to have been committed by them -: It was not 
possible to conclude that the evidence made available before 
E 
the Sessions Judge, even if given face Value and taken to be 
correct in its entirety, did not disclose commission of offence 
or on basis thereof judgment of conviction could not be 
~ recorded at all-· Penal Code, 1860 - s.306. 
A young girl committed suicide by consuming 
'sulphos' tablets. She made a dying declaration. In regard 
to the incident, an FIR was lodged under ss. 306150914201 
120-8/456 IPC and charge-sheet submitted against 'S', the 
brother of appellant no.2. 
F 
G 
Respondent no.2, the father of the deceased, filed 
, ....,..~ 
application under s.319 CrPC for summoning the 
:ip~ellants as additional accused in connection with the 
said FIR on the allegation that the appellants alongwith 
1015 
H 
1016 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A 'S' used to harass the deceased and black-mailed her by 
throwing some obscene photographs of hers before her 
house as well as in front of the house of her uncle in order 
to defame her and in order to pressurize her to marry 'S'. 
Placing reliance upon the statement made by respondent 
B no.2 as also the said dying declaration, the Sessions 
Judge allowed the application. Revision petition filed by 
the appellants was dismissed by the High Court. 
,l. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the 
• 
c 
High Court had committed serious error insofar as it 
failed to take into consideration that the ingredients of 
s.306 IPC was not fulfilled inasmuch as the immediate 
cause for committing suicide being throwing obscene 
photographs of the deceased having been attributed to 
... 
'S' alone, the appellants could not have been summoned 
D by the courts below as additional accused. 
• -
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the present case, the deceased made 
E a dying declaration. In the said dying declaration not only 
'S' but also the appellants were named as the persons 
who were responsible for her death. Correctness of the 
said dying declaration at this stage is not and cannot be 
questioned. It may be true that the appellants were not 
~ 
charge-sheeted but only because no charge-sheet has 
F been submitted against certain persons, the same by 
itself, would not be a sufficient ground for the court at a 
later stage, namely, upon consideration of the evidence 
adduced before it by the prosecution to decline to 
exercise its jurisdiction to add other persons as accused 
G for trying them for offences which appear to it to have 
been committed by them. The dying declaration together 
), 
with statements made by the prosecution witnesses 
show commission of an offence. Appellants took side of 
'S'. They not only asked the deceased to marry him but 
H even threatened her as also her parents that in case of 
HARBHAJAN SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF 
1017 
PUNJAB AND ANR. 
-,..i 
refusal, she would be 'defamed'. It is not possible, 
A 
keeping in view the nature of evidence which was made 
~' 
available before the Sessions Judge, to arrive at a 
conclusion that the said evidence, even if given face 
value and taken to be correct in its entirety; had not 
disclosed commission of an offence or on the basis 
B 
thereof a judgment of conviction cannot be recorded at 
all. Appellants had raised certain defences. The same 
,. 
ultimately may or may not be accepted. But, indisputably, 
~ 
at this stage, the evidence adduced discloses some 
offence. [Para 9) [1021-G-H; 1022-A-F] 
c 
1.2. If judicious discretion exercised by the Court had 
led it to pass an order under Section 319 of the Code, the 
• 
Hig

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.