Trial Court Order To Summon Alleged Abettor Of Suicide Is Restored; High Court Quashing Set Aside

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan heard an appeal by the father of the deceased challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order quashing a trial court’s direction summoning a man to face trial under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal raised the narrow question whether evidence led during trial justified exercise of the Court’s extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC to proceed against a person not originally charged.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment of 21 November 2023, holding that the Trial Court had rightly exercised its power under Section 319 CrPC. The Court emphasised that Section 319 empowered a trial court to bring before it “any person whose complicity becomes apparent from the evidence that emerges in Court” and required action when live evidence disclosed a prima-facie case. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court further noted that “non-summoning of respondent no. 2 would have risked a truncated trial and a possible failure of justice” and observed that conduct which, if proved, would amount to abetment could not be dismissed as mere banter: “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.”

Background The dispute arose from two related incidents. An acid attack on 13 March 2016 was registered as FIR No. 30/2016; a separate confrontation on 10 May 2016 preceded the death of Dharminder Singh, whose body was recovered from a canal on 13 May 2016. The appellant, the deceased’s father, lodged FIR No. 51/2016 under Sections 306/34 IPC naming several persons including respondent no. 2. During investigation respondent no. 2 advanced an alibi supported by a parking slip, OPD records, a medicine bill and CCTV footage from PGI Chandigarh; the police recorded him as “innocent” in a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC and did not charge him. Later, at trial, the complainant (PW‑1) and an eyewitness narrated that respondent no. 2 and others had taunted the deceased on 10 May 2016, after which the deceased secluded himself and left home; the Public Prosecutor moved under Section 319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2. The Trial Court allowed the application on 4 July 2022, finding PW‑1’s sworn testimony and corroboration sufficient to disclose a prima‑facie case; the High Court, however, set aside that order on 21 November 2023, preferring the investigation record and treating the incident as “teasing,” while granting liberty to invoke Section 319 if credible evidence surfaced.

On appeal the Supreme Court held that an alibi was a defence burdened on the accused and that documentary material relied on by respondent no. 2 remained untested unless formally proved; the Court emphasised that a Section 319 exercise relied on evidence adduced in Court and should not be foreclosed by untested investigation‑stage conclusions. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, restored the Trial Court’s order summoning respondent no. 2, directed him to appear within four weeks and left bail conditions to the Trial Court. The Court expressly confined its observations to the Section 319 adjudication and stated that they would not influence final appreciation of evidence at trial.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 634; SLP (Criminal) No. 1891 of 2024 Case Title: Harjinder Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocate details not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Advocate details not indicated in the judgment