Summary
The Trial Court summoned respondent no. 2 under Section 319 CrPC to face trial for abetment of suicide on the sworn testimony of the complainant (PW1); the High Court set that aside under Section 482 CrPC, relying on alibi documents gathered during investigation. The Supreme Court held that Section 319 is triggered by evidence surfacing in court, that an untested alibi is a defence for trial and cannot be treated as conclusive at the summoning stage, and that the investigating officer's opinion does not bind the trial court; the summoning order was revived.
Issues
- Whether the evidence led at trial justified the Trial Court's exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2.
- Whether the High Court was right, under Section 482 CrPC, to set aside the summoning order on the strength of untested alibi documents from the investigation record.
- Whether a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC finding a person innocent prevents the trial court from later summoning him as an additional accused.
Provisions considered
- Section 319(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The power lets a court seized of a trial proceed against any person whose complicity appears from evidence emerging in court. It is an exception to trial only on chargesheet and committal, is extraordinary and to be used with circumspection, but is not deferential to investigative conclusions: once live evidence shows a prima facie case stronger than mere suspicion the court must act. The sworn deposition of PW1 attributing a direct role to respondent no. 2 met that threshold. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 13, 15)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court's interference, resting on the investigation dossier and treating unproved defence documents as outweighing sworn testimony, was inconsistent with the text of Section 319 and foreclosed the prosecution from testing the alibi; it was set aside. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The police report had classified respondent no. 2 as innocent after accepting his alibi. The Court held that once cognizance is taken and trial begins the investigating agency's view yields to the court's independent assessment; an investigating officer's opinion cannot freeze the array of accused. (¶¶ 3.4, 12)
- Section 306 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The offence for which respondent no. 2 was summoned. The Court observed that abetment of suicide need not occur at a single moment and may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure; whether the offence is established is for the Trial Court, keeping in view Mahendra Awase v. State of M.P. and other decisions on Section 306. (¶¶ 2, 11, 14)
Held
- The power under Section 319 CrPC is triggered not by conjecture but by evidence surfacing in court. It is an exception to the rule that an accused stands trial only on chargesheet and committal and must be exercised with circumspection, yet it is neither illusory nor deferential to investigative conclusions; once live evidence discloses a prima facie case stronger than mere suspicion, the court must act. Section 319 is to be read constructively and purposively so that the real offender does not slip through procedural gaps. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- An alibi is a defence whose burden lies on the accused. Documents such as a parking slip, chemist's bill, OPD card and CCTV clip that have not been formally proved remain untested, and treating them as conclusive at the summoning stage would invert the order of criminal proceedings by deciding a defence before the prosecution leads its evidence. Even at face value such material did not eclipse the prosecution version, given the time gap and distance involved. (¶ 11)
- Once cognizance is taken and trial commences, the investigating agency's acceptance of an alibi yields to the court's independent assessment; if evidence implicating a new participant surfaces mid-trial the court is duty-bound to act on it. Section 319 would be rendered otiose if an investigating officer's earlier opinion could freeze the array of accused. (¶ 12)
- A sworn statement recorded in court is substantive evidence and is not to be discounted merely because it repeats the FIR narrative. The threshold for summoning is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but the appearance of involvement from evidence adduced in the proceeding; short of a confession, little stronger material could be demanded at that stage. (¶ 13)
- A High Court exercising power under Section 482 CrPC errs when it places decisive reliance on the investigation dossier, characterises as mere teasing an allegation that a physically challenged acid-attack victim was told that he and his family should die, and elevates unproved defence documents above sworn testimony; such interference deprives the trial court of jurisdiction expressly conferred on it. Observations made are confined to the Section 319 stage and do not bind the final appreciation of evidence. (¶¶ 14, 15, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 21 November 2023 in CRM-M No. 31120 of 2022 set aside; Trial Court order dated 04 July 2022 summoning respondent no. 2 under Section 306 IPC revived; respondent no. 2 to appear before the Trial Court within four weeks, with bail conditions, if any, to be regulated by the Trial Court; pending applications disposed of.