Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Read Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/twql

Citations: 2025 INSC 634
Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (@ SLP (Criminal) No. 1891 of 2024)
Decided on: May 06, 2025
Bench: Vikram Nath, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Case Name: Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Section 319 CrPC, Abetment to Suicide, Section 306 IPC, Alibi, Prima Facie Evidence, High Court Interference, Sworn Testimony, Criminal Trial.

Held

1. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment dated 21 November 2023, which had quashed the Trial Court’s order summoning Respondent No. 2 under Section 319 CrPC for trial under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC in connection with the suicide of the appellant’s son following alleged taunts.
2. The power under Section 319 CrPC is triggered by evidence emerging during trial, not conjecture, and is meant to ensure no perpetrator escapes justice. Sworn testimony of PW-1, corroborated by a Section 161 CrPC statement, constituted prima facie evidence justifying the Trial Court’s summoning order.
3. The High Court erred in prioritizing untested alibi documents (parking slip, CCTV footage, OPD records) over sworn ocular testimony, effectively foreclosing the prosecution’s right to test the alibi and undermining the Trial Court’s jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC.
4. An alibi is a defense to be proven by the accused at trial; untested documents cannot override prosecution evidence at the summoning stage. The time-distance matrix of the alibi did not conclusively negate the possibility of Respondent No. 2’s presence at the incident.
5. The High Court’s characterization of the alleged taunts as “teasing” overlooked their gravity in the context of the victim’s vulnerability post an acid attack, warranting sensitivity to social notions of honor and shame.
6. The Trial Court’s order dated 04 July 2022 was restored, directing Respondent No. 2 to appear within four weeks for trial, with observations limited to Section 319 CrPC and not to influence the final trial outcome.

Result: Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Trial Court’s summoning order revived.

Read Also: Law Note on Section 319 CrPC: Power to Proceed Against Other Persons Appearing to be Guilty of Offence

Facts

• Background: The appellant, Harjinder Singh, father of the deceased Dharminder Singh, challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment dated 21 November 2023, which quashed a Trial Court order summoning Varinder Singh (Respondent No. 2) under Section 319 CrPC for trial under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
• Incident: On 10 May 2016, Respondent No. 2, along with others, allegedly taunted Dharminder Singh, a prior acid attack victim, for not retaliating against his assailants, leading to his distress and subsequent suicide. His body was found in a canal on 13 May 2016.
• Procedural History:
  • FIR No. 51/2016 was registered under Sections 306/34 IPC. The police investigation accepted Respondent No. 2’s alibi (supported by parking slip, OPD records, CCTV footage from PGI Chandigarh) and declared him innocent.
  • The Trial Court summoned Respondent No. 2 on 20 January 2017 under Section 193 CrPC, which was quashed by the High Court on 24 November 2021.
  • During trial, the appellant (PW-1) testified, and based on his testimony and Jagdev Singh’s Section 161 CrPC statement, the Trial Court again summoned Respondent No. 2 on 04 July 2022 under Section 319 CrPC.
  • The High Court set aside this order, relying on the investigation dossier and untested alibi documents.

Issues

1. Whether the Trial Court’s exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC to summon Respondent No. 2 was justified based on the evidence led during trial.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the Trial Court’s summoning order under Section 482 CrPC.

Arguments

• Appellant:
  • The High Court misapplied Section 319 CrPC by prioritizing untested alibi documents over sworn testimony.
  • PW-1’s testimony, corroborated by Jagdev Singh’s statement, established a prima facie case.
  • Respondent No. 2’s alibi documents were not tested in trial and related to an incorrect date (10 March 2016).
  • The High Court’s dismissal of the taunts as “teasing” ignored their psychological impact in the context of the victim’s vulnerability.
• Respondents:
  • The police investigation, supported by documentary evidence (parking slip, CCTV, OPD records), confirmed Respondent No. 2’s presence in Chandigarh, 90 km away, at the time of the incident.
  • Section 319 CrPC requires stronger evidence than for framing charges; PW-1’s testimony merely reiterated the FIR.
  • The Trial Court ignored scientific evidence, and the High Court rightly intervened to prevent harassment.

Judgment

• Held:
  • The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s summoning order.
  • Section 319 CrPC is triggered by evidence emerging in trial, not investigative conclusions. PW-1’s sworn testimony, corroborated by Jagdev Singh’s statement, satisfied the prima facie threshold for summoning Respondent No. 2.
  • The High Court erred in elevating untested alibi documents (parking slip, CCTV, OPD records) over ocular evidence, effectively preempting the trial process. An alibi is a defense to be proven by the accused at trial, not at the summoning stage.
  • The time-distance matrix (90 km, with CCTV evidence at 12:09 p.m.) did not conclusively rule out Respondent No. 2’s presence at the 8:30 a.m. incident.
  • The High Court’s characterization of the taunts as “teasing” undervalued their severity, given the victim’s recent trauma and social context.
  • The Trial Court’s order was consistent with the purpose of Section 319 CrPC to prevent perpetrators from escaping justice.
• Order:
  • The High Court’s judgment dated 21 November 2023 was set aside.
  • The Trial Court’s order dated 04 July 2022 was revived, directing Respondent No. 2 to appear within four weeks for trial under Section 306 IPC.
  • Observations were limited to Section 319 CrPC and would not influence the trial’s final outcome.

Ratio Decidendi

• Section 319 CrPC empowers courts to summon additional accused based on trial evidence, requiring only a prima facie case, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Sworn testimony constitutes substantive evidence, outweighing untested investigative documents at the summoning stage.
• Courts must exercise sensitivity to the social and psychological context of alleged abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.

Significance

• Reinforces the broad, purposive interpretation of Section 319 CrPC to ensure justice, as established in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014).
• Clarifies that untested alibis cannot override trial evidence at the summoning stage, preserving the prosecution’s right to test defenses during trial.
• Emphasizes judicial sensitivity to the impact of verbal acts in abetment cases, particularly for vulnerable victims.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. What is the primary purpose of Section 319 CrPC as interpreted in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2025 INSC 634)?
   a) To allow police to add accused during investigation
   b) To enable courts to summon additional accused based on trial evidence
   c) To permit pre-trial acquittal of accused with alibis
   d) To restrict trial courts from acting on sworn testimony
   Answer: b) To enable courts to summon additional accused based on trial evidence
   Explanation: Section 319 CrPC empowers courts to summon persons not initially accused if trial evidence indicates their involvement, as clarified in Harjinder Singh.
2. In Harjinder Singh, what evidence did the Trial Court rely on to summon Respondent No. 2 under Section 319 CrPC?
   a) Police investigation report
   b) Sworn testimony of PW-1 and a Section 161 CrPC statement
   c) Untested CCTV footage and parking slip
   d) Confession by Respondent No. 2
   Answer: b) Sworn testimony of PW-1 and a Section 161 CrPC statement
   Explanation: The Trial Court based its summoning order on PW-1’s testimony, corroborated by Jagdev Singh’s Section 161 statement, establishing a prima facie case.
3. What was the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the High Court’s interference in Harjinder Singh?
   a) Upheld the High Court’s reliance on alibi documents
   b) Set aside the High Court’s judgment, restoring the Trial Court’s summoning order
   c) Directed a fresh police investigation
   d) Ordered immediate acquittal of Respondent No. 2
   Answer: b) Set aside the High Court’s judgment, restoring the Trial Court’s summoning order
   Explanation: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for prioritizing untested alibi documents and quashing the Trial Court’s order, restoring the summoning.
4. What threshold is required to invoke Section 319 CrPC, as per Harjinder Singh?
   a) Proof beyond reasonable doubt
   b) Mere suspicion based on FIR
   c) Prima facie evidence stronger than suspicion
   d) Conclusive documentary evidence
   Answer: c) Prima facie evidence stronger than suspicion
   Explanation: The Supreme Court held that Section 319 CrPC requires a prima facie case based on trial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Why did the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh reject the High Court’s reliance on Respondent No. 2’s alibi?
   a) The alibi was irrelevant to the case
   b) Alibi documents were untested and a matter for trial
   c) The alibi was disproved by prosecution evidence
   d) The alibi related to a different offence
   Answer: b) Alibi documents were untested and a matter for trial
   Explanation: The Court ruled that alibis are defenses to be proven at trial, and untested documents like CCTV footage cannot override sworn testimony at the summoning stage.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 319 CrPC, and what does it aim to achieve?
   Answer: Section 319 CrPC allows a court, during an inquiry or trial, to summon any person not initially accused if evidence suggests their involvement in the offence. It aims to ensure comprehensive justice by preventing perpetrators from escaping trial due to investigative oversights, as emphasized in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2025).
2. How was Section 319 CrPC applied in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.?
   Answer: In Harjinder Singh, the Trial Court summoned Respondent No. 2 under Section 319 CrPC for abetment to suicide (Section 306 IPC) based on PW-1’s sworn testimony and a corroborating Section 161 CrPC statement. The Supreme Court upheld this, ruling that the evidence established a prima facie case, and the High Court erred in quashing the order by relying on untested alibi documents.
3. What types of evidence are sufficient to invoke Section 319 CrPC?
   Answer: Sworn testimony (e.g., witness statements under oath) and formally adduced documents constitute sufficient evidence. Statements under Section 161 CrPC may corroborate but are inadmissible until the witness testifies. The evidence must show a prima facie case, as clarified in Harjinder Singh.
4. Can investigative findings override trial evidence under Section 319 CrPC?
   Answer: No. Once a trial begins, investigative findings, such as police reports under Section 173(2) CrPC, yield to the court’s independent assessment of trial evidence. In Harjinder Singh, the Supreme Court held that Section 319 CrPC prioritizes live evidence, rendering prior police conclusions secondary.
5. What role does an alibi play in the context of Section 319 CrPC, as per Harjinder Singh?
   Answer: An alibi is a defense to be proven by the accused during trial, not at the summoning stage. In Harjinder Singh, the Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on untested alibi documents (e.g., parking slip, CCTV), stating they cannot override sworn testimony when invoking Section 319 CrPC.
6. Why did the Supreme Court criticize the High Court’s decision in Harjinder Singh?
   Answer: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for:
   • Prioritizing untested alibi documents over PW-1’s sworn testimony.
   • Characterizing serious taunts as “teasing,” ignoring their psychological impact.
   • Prematurely quashing the Trial Court’s order under Section 482 CrPC, which foreclosed the prosecution’s right to test the alibi and undermined Section 319 CrPC’s purpose.
7. What are the implications of Harjinder Singh for trial courts applying Section 319 CrPC?
   Answer: Trial courts must:
   • Act on trial evidence showing a prima facie case, without deference to investigative findings.
   • Treat sworn testimony as substantive evidence, outweighing untested defenses like alibis.
   • Exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC cautiously but proactively to ensure no offender escapes justice.
8. How does Harjinder Singh emphasize sensitivity in abetment to suicide cases?
   Answer: The Supreme Court highlighted the need for sensitivity to the social and psychological context in Section 306 IPC cases, noting that taunts urging a vulnerable victim (post-acid attack) to “die of shame” were not mere “teasing” but potentially serious abetment, warranting trial.