Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal case where the appellant was accused of attempting to kidnap the complainant (respondent no.2). The FIR was lodged under Sections 366, 323, 506(II) IPC and Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act. During trial, the examination-in-chief of the complainant (PW1), her mother (PW2), and father (PW3) was recorded on 29.02.2020, but their cross-examination was deferred at the appellant's request. On 07.03.2020, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant's parents. Subsequently, the three prosecution witnesses repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination despite summons, leading the Trial Court to note their wilful disobedience. On 14.09.2020, the Trial Court ordered that the Section 319 application would be decided after all witnesses were examined. The witnesses continued to avoid cross-examination, insisting that the Section 319 application be decided first. On 21.09.2020, the Trial Court closed the prosecution evidence and, finding no admissible evidence, rejected the Section 319 application and acquitted the appellant under Section 232 CrPC. The complainant appealed to the Calcutta High Court, which set aside the acquittal and remanded the case, directing the Trial Court to first decide the Section 319 application based solely on examination-in-chief, relying on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court misinterpreted Hardeep Singh. The Supreme Court clarified that Hardeep Singh does not mandate deciding Section 319 applications before cross-examination; it only states that examination-in-chief is evidence and can be considered. The Trial Court has discretion to decide the application after cross-examination. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Trial Court's acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Section 319 CrPC - Power to summon additional accused - Examination-in-Chief as evidence - The Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab held that examination-in-chief is evidence and can be relied upon for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC, but it does not mandate that the application must be decided before cross-examination. The Trial Court has discretion to decide the application after cross-examination depending on the satisfaction of the court. (Paras 13-16) B) Criminal Procedure - Acquittal - Closure of prosecution evidence - Trial Court closed evidence and acquitted accused under Section 232 CrPC due to prosecution witnesses' wilful non-appearance for cross-examination. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the acquittal and remanding the matter, as the Trial Court's decision was based on the conduct of the witnesses and the discretion to decide Section 319 application after cross-examination was valid. (Paras 10-11, 17-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that an application under Section 319 CrPC must necessarily be decided before cross-examination of witnesses, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 11.08.2022, and restored the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal dated 31.09.2020.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC
- Examination-in-Chief as evidence
- Discretion of Trial Court
- Hardeep Singh ratio
- No mandatory requirement to decide Section 319 before cross-examination
