Summary
The Supreme Court held that Hardeep Singh does not require an application under Section 319 CrPC to be decided on examination-in-chief before cross-examination; the trial court retains discretion to wait. Where prosecution witnesses repeatedly refused to face cross-examination unless the Section 319 application was decided first, the trial court rightly closed the evidence, rejected the application and acquitted the accused under Section 232 CrPC.
Issues
- Whether Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab makes it mandatory to decide an application under Section 319 CrPC on the examination-in-chief alone, before cross-examination.
- Whether a complainant can insist that the Section 319 application be decided before the prosecution witnesses submit to cross-examination.
- Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the Section 319 application and acquitting the accused under Section 232 CrPC as a case of no evidence.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Read with Hardeep Singh, the power may be exercised on examination-in-chief, which is itself evidence, but nothing mandates deciding the application before cross-examination. Whether to decide it at once or wait for cross-examination is for the trial court, on the material before it. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19)
- Section 232, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The prosecution witnesses repeatedly avoided cross-examination, so their evidence was not admissible. The trial court was right to treat the case as one of no evidence and record an acquittal. (¶¶ 10, 19)
Held
- Hardeep Singh does not lay down that a Section 319 CrPC application must be decided before cross-examination and only on examination-in-chief. It clarifies that examination-in-chief is evidence on which such an application may be decided, and that the inquiry should not become a mini-trial. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The trial court keeps the discretion to wait for cross-examination before deciding a Section 319 application; the choice depends on its satisfaction on the material on record. Complicity may be assessed with or without cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. (¶¶ 15, 17)
- A complainant has no right to insist that a Section 319 application be decided first. In a sessions trial of a State case the complainant and counsel have a limited role and cannot act as Public Prosecutor; here the Public Prosecutor had not supported the application. (¶ 18)
- Since the prosecution witnesses kept absenting themselves or seeking adjournments and would not face cross-examination, the trial court rightly closed the prosecution evidence, rejected the Section 319 application for want of admissible evidence, and acquitted the accused under Section 232 CrPC. The High Court erred in reading Hardeep Singh as a mandate and remanding the case. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's judgment remanding the case set aside; trial court's order rejecting the Section 319 CrPC application and acquitting the appellant restored.