Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Raghuveer Sharan, was a cashier at the respondent bank. In 1998, a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 was made for 3 years, but the challans and bank ledger were allegedly interpolated by the appellant to change the tenure to 10 years and then to 15 years. A criminal complaint was filed, and the appellant was examined as a witness for the bank at the pre-summoning stage on 19.03.2016, where he admitted to making the changes. During trial, PW-1 Narendra Singh Parmar testified on 31.03.2022 that the appellant made the interpolations. The bank then filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant as an additional accused. The trial court allowed the application, and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court considered whether the appellant was entitled to protection under Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that a witness cannot be prosecuted based on his own compelled testimony. The Court analyzed the proviso to Section 132, which is based on the maxim nemo tenetur prodere seipsum (no one is bound to criminate himself) and is an extension of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court held that the appellant's statement at the pre-summoning stage was made as a witness, and the proviso grants immunity from prosecution based on that statement. Since the summoning under Section 319 CrPC was based solely on the appellant's own statement and the testimony of PW-1, which was not independent evidence, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the summoning order, and quashed the charges framed against the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summoning of Additional Accused under Section 319 CrPC - Protection under Section 132 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The issue was whether a witness who made a statement at the pre-summoning stage could be summoned as an accused under Section 319 CrPC based on that statement. The Court held that the proviso to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 grants immunity to a witness from prosecution based on his own compelled testimony, and such a witness cannot be summoned as an accused solely on the basis of his own statement made as a witness. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the summoning order. (Paras 9-18) B) Evidence Law - Witness Immunity - Section 132 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Nemo Tenetur Prodere Seipsum - The proviso to Section 132 is based on the maxim that no one is bound to criminate himself. It creates a statutory immunity in favour of a witness who makes a statement which criminates himself, and such answer cannot be used against him in any criminal proceeding except for perjury. The Court held that this protection applies even if the statement was made at the pre-summoning stage. (Paras 10-15) C) Constitutional Law - Right Against Self-Incrimination - Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India - The proviso to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an extension of the protection enshrined under Article 20(3) which confers a fundamental right that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The Court noted that the proviso creates a statutory immunity in favour of a witness who makes a self-incriminating statement. (Para 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a witness who made a statement at the pre-summoning stage can be summoned as an accused under Section 319 CrPC based on that statement, and whether the proviso to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 protects such a witness from prosecution.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Special Court (MP/MLA) Gwalior summoning the appellant under Section 319 CrPC and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 09.11.2023 are set aside. Charges framed against the appellant on 15.06.2023 are quashed.
Law Points
- Section 132 Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- proviso grants immunity to a witness from prosecution based on his own compelled testimony
- Section 319 CrPC cannot be used to summon a witness as accused solely on his own statement made as a witness
- protection under Section 132 extends to pre-summoning statements recorded as a witness
