The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court correctly exercised its power under Section 319 CrPC to summon the accused based on sworn testimony and corroborative evidence, which disclosed a prima facie case of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. The High Court erred in setting aside the summoning order by prematurely evaluating an untested alibi and disregarding live evidence. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving an alibi lies on the accused and must be adjudicated during trial, not at the threshold. The judgment reaffirmed the constructive and purposive interpretation of Section 319 CrPC to ensure no guilty person escapes trial.
Facts Of The Case:
On March 13, 2016, an acid attack was committed against Dharminder Singh by ten persons, leading to the registration of FIR No. 30 of 2016 under various sections of the IPC, though respondent no. 2 (Varinder Singh) was not named. On May 10, 2016, Dharminder and his uncle Jagdev Singh were allegedly confronted by respondent no. 2 and others near their land, where they taunted Dharminder, saying he and his family “should die of shame” for not retaliating against the acid attack. Distraught, Dharminder locked himself in a room and later left home alone. His body was recovered from a canal on May 13, 2016, prompting the registration of FIR No. 51 of 2016 under Sections 306/34 IPC, naming respondent no. 2 among others.
During investigation, respondent no. 2 claimed an alibi, presenting a parking slip, medical records, and CCTV footage from PGI Chandigarh on May 10, 2016. The police accepted his plea and excluded him from the chargesheet. However, during trial, Dharminder’s father (the appellant) testified as PW-1, corroborated by Jagdev Singh’s statement, leading the Trial Court to summon respondent no. 2 under Section 319 CrPC. The High Court quashed this order, relying on the alibi evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that the Trial Court rightly summoned respondent no. 2, as the alibi required testing during trial and not at the preliminary stage.
Procedural History:
The case originated with the registration of FIR No. 51 of 2016 under Sections 306/34 IPC after the suicide of Dharminder Singh, allegedly abetted by respondent no. 2 (Varinder Singh) and others. The police initially excluded respondent no. 2 from the chargesheet, accepting his alibi based on documentary evidence. The Trial Court, however, summoned him under Section 193 CrPC on January 20, 2017, which the High Court later quashed on November 24, 2021, citing the absence of a committal order but granting liberty to invoke Section 319 CrPC if fresh evidence emerged.
During the trial, the appellant (victim’s father) testified as PW-1, corroborated by Jagdev Singh’s statement, prompting the Trial Court to summon respondent no. 2 under Section 319 CrPC on July 4, 2022. Respondent no. 2 challenged this before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, which set aside the summoning order on November 21, 2023, relying heavily on the untested alibi evidence. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, which, on May 6, 2025, reversed the High Court’s decision, reinstating the Trial Court’s order and emphasizing that the alibi defense must be tested during trial, not at the threshold. The Supreme Court affirmed the Trial Court’s authority under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused based on prima facie evidence.
Read Also: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Cheque Dishonour Case After Full Repayment : Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations while allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court’s order. It emphasized that the Trial Court had correctly exercised its powers under Section 319 CrPC based on the sworn testimony of PW-1 (the deceased’s father) and the corroborative statement of Jagdev Singh, which established a prima facie case against respondent no. 2 for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court noted that the High Court erred in prematurely evaluating the alibi defense at the summoning stage, as such defenses must be tested during trial and not used to short-circuit the judicial process.
The judgment underscored that Section 319 CrPC is a vital provision to ensure no guilty person escapes trial, and courts must adopt a constructive interpretation of this power. It observed that the High Court’s reliance on unproven documentary evidence (parking slips, CCTV footage, etc.) was misplaced, as these materials required formal proof during trial. The Court also rejected the characterization of the accused’s taunts as mere “teasing,” noting that the words—uttered shortly after an acid attack—carried grave psychological impact in the social context. Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that the prosecution’s burden at the Section 319 stage is not to prove guilt beyond doubt but to demonstrate sufficient evidence warranting the accused’s trial. The observations were confined to the summoning stage, leaving the final appreciation of evidence to the Trial Court.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment dated November 21, 2023. It restored the Trial Court’s order dated July 4, 2022, which had summoned respondent no. 2 (Varinder Singh) to face trial under Section 306 IPC for alleged abetment of Dharminder Singh’s suicide. The Court directed respondent no. 2 to appear before the Trial Court within four weeks and left it open for him to seek bail as per law.
The judgment clarified that all observations made were limited to the Section 319 CrPC proceedings and should not influence the Trial Court’s final appreciation of evidence. By reviving the summoning order, the Supreme Court affirmed that sufficient prima facie evidence existed to proceed against respondent no. 2, while preserving his right to contest the charges and prove his alibi during trial. The decision reinforced the principle that Section 319 CrPC serves as a safeguard to ensure all culpable parties face trial, particularly where sworn testimony and corroborative evidence suggest complicity.
Case Details:
Case Title: Harjinder Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 634 (Supreme Court of India) Criminal Appeal No.: (@ SLP (Criminal) No. 1891 of 2024) Date of Judgment: May 6, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Download The Judgement Here