Summoning Of Accused Under Section 319 CrPC Restored | Unproven Alibi Cannot Override Sworn Testimony | Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order In Suicide Abetment Case
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan allowed the appeal preferred against the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s judgment that had set aside the summoning of an accused under Section 319 CrPC. The Court held that the unproven alibi produced by the accused could not override sworn eyewitness testimony and that the Trial Court had correctly exercised its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored the order summoning the accused and directed him to appear before the Trial Court within four weeks.
The matter arose from an incident leading to the death of Dharminder Singh, who was found dead on 13 May 2016 following an alleged suicide. Two months earlier, on 13 March 2016, Dharminder Singh had been subjected to an acid attack by ten individuals. The police registered FIR No. 30 of 2016 in this regard. Notably, Varinder Singh (respondent no. 2) was not named as an accused in this FIR.
On 10 May 2016, another incident occurred. According to the prosecution, at around 8:30 a.m., while Dharminder Singh and his uncle Jagdev Singh were near their abadi land, they were confronted by Gurmail Singh, respondent no. 2, and two others, who taunted the deceased, suggesting he and his family “should die of shame” for not retaliating against the acid attack assailants.
Disturbed by the incident, Dharminder Singh isolated himself, locked his room, and later left his home at about 4:00 p.m. When he failed to return, a search ensued, which led to the discovery of his bicycle and clothes near Hussainpur canal. His body was recovered on 13 May 2016. Consequently, FIR No. 51 of 2016 was registered under Sections 306/34 IPC, naming respondent no. 2 among others.
During investigation, respondent no. 2 produced evidence claiming an alibi. This included a parking slip, outpatient records, medical bill, and CCTV footage from PGI Chandigarh dated 10 May 2016. The police accepted his plea of innocence and filed a closure report under Section 173(2) CrPC on 02 August 2016, omitting respondent no. 2 from the accused list.
Subsequently, on an application filed by the Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court summoned respondent no. 2 under Section 193 CrPC on 20 January 2017. This summoning was quashed by the High Court on 24 November 2021, citing the absence of a committal order and allowing the prosecution to invoke Section 319 CrPC if credible evidence emerged during trial.
During the trial, PW-1 (father of the deceased) testified on 08 March 2022 and narrated the events of 10 May 2016, directly implicating respondent no. 2. Additionally, Jagdev Singh’s statement under Section 161 CrPC corroborated PW-1's account. On this basis, the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 CrPC.
The Trial Court, by its order dated 04 July 2022, allowed the application, holding that sworn testimony and corroborative evidence disclosed a prima facie case against respondent no. 2. He was directed to appear on 02 August 2022 to face trial alongside others.
Respondent no. 2 challenged this order before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order on 21 November 2023, ruling that the investigation material, including the alibi documents, had not been adequately considered and that no stronger evidence had emerged to justify the summoning.
Aggrieved by this, the complainant-father of the deceased approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court began by delineating the scope of Section 319 CrPC. The Bench observed in italicised words, "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." Further, "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 Court recalled the decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein it was recorded, "The entire effort, therefore, is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished... a constructive and purposive interpretation should be adopted that advances the cause of justice."
The Bench stated that an alibi defence, raised at the investigation stage, does not preclude the Trial Court from summoning an accused if evidence subsequently emerges. "An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused." It further stated, "Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper."
The Court then examined the gap between the alleged confrontation and the alibi evidence. It recorded, "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." This, according to the Bench, did not conclusively rule out the possibility of respondent no. 2’s involvement.
The judgment further stated, "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."
The Bench disagreed with the High Court’s assessment, stating, "Section 319 CrPC would be rendered otiose if an Investigating Officer’s earlier opinion could freeze the array of accused for all time."
Regarding the High Court’s view that the confrontation was mere "teasing," the Court observed, "Such a description underplays both the content and the effect of the words spoken... telling a physically challenged man that he and his family should die is not banter."
The Court finally noted, "The Trial Court will also decide whether on facts the offence is established." However, in the context of Section 319 CrPC, it concluded that the threshold was met in this case.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the order summoning respondent no. 2 to face trial. The Court directed: “The judgment and order dated 21 November 2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRM-M No. 31120 of 2022 is set aside.”
It further directed: “The order of the Trial Court dated 04 July 2022 summoning respondent no. 2 to stand trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC shall stand revived.”
Additionally, the Bench ordered: “Respondent no. 2 shall appear before the Trial Court within four weeks from today and thereafter abide by all further orders of the Trial Court.”
The Court clarified: “It will be open to the Trial Court to regulate the conditions of his release, if any application for bail is moved, in accordance with law.”
Finally, the Court noted: “All observations made herein are confined to the present adjudication under Section 319 CrPC and shall not influence the final appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. G. Balaji, AOR
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR; Mr. Chritarth Palli, AOR
Case Title: Harjinder Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 634
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). …… of 2025 (@ SLP (Criminal) No. 1891 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
[Read/Download order]
