LexHARJINDER SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 168 : 2025 INSC 634 Harjinder Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2477 of 2024) 06 May 2025 [Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the evidence led, in the instant case, justified the Trial Court’s exercise of power u/s.319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2, and whether the High Court was right in setting that order aside at the threshold. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – On 13.03.2016, an acid attack was allegedly committed upon victim-deceased – On 10.05.2016, respondent no.2 along with other persons stopped his car near victim and taunted him stating that he and his family should die of shame for not having taken action against the acid-attack assailants – Victim returned home distressed – Later, his body was recovered near a canal – FIR registered u/s.306/34 IPC – By order dated 24.11.2021, the High Court quashed summoning order of respondent no.2 – During trial, Public Prosecutor filed an application u/s.319 to summon respondent no.2 – The said application was allowed by the Trial Court – Respondent no.2 filed application u/s.482 CrPC against the order of the Trial Court – The High Court set aside the summoning order of respondent no.2 – Correctness: Held: The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi – An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused – Here, the 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 the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence – * Author [2025] 6 S.C.R. 169 Harjinder Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version – The parking slip is timed at 06:30 a.m.; the chemist’s bill and CCTV images are from 12:09 p.m. – The confrontation is alleged at 08:30 a.m. – A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window – More importantly, 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 the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs – If the allegations are true, telling a physically challenged man that he and his family should die, and doing so in the immediate aftermath of a grievous acid attack, is not banter – Sensitivity to the social context, where honour and shame weigh heavily, was called for – The offence, no doubt, will have to be established at the trial – Having regard to the purpose of s.319 CrPC, there is no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court. [Paras 11, 14, 15] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence: Held: The provision enables a criminal Court, once seized of the matter, to bring before it any individual whose complicity becomes apparent from the evidence that emerges in Court – It is an exception to the general rule that an accused stands trial only upon charge-sheet and committal; its object is to ensure that the trial does not proceed without a participant who, on the material now available, appears to share criminal liability – The 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, the Court must act. [Para 8] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – When police has accepted the plea of alibi of the accused – However, the trial Court has summoned the accused u/s.319 of CrPC: Held: If, in the midst of that trial, evidence implicating a new participant surfaces, the Court is duty-bound to act on it – S.319 CrPC would be rendered otiose if an Investigating Officer’s earlier opinion could freeze the array of accused for all time. [Para 12] 170 [2025] 6 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [2014] 2 SCR 1: (2014) 3 SCC 92 – followed. Mah
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.