A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) regarding the requirement to decide an application for summoning additional accused before the cross-examination of witnesses. The case revolved around the procedural obligations of trial courts while handling applications under Section 319 CrPC. The primary issue was whether the trial court was bound to decide an application under Section 319 CrPC solely on the basis of the examination-in-chief or whether it could wait for cross-examination to be completed. The Court clarified that while examination-in-chief constitutes evidence, the trial court retains the discretion to decide the application post-cross-examination. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision to reject the application under Section 319 CrPC and acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to provide admissible evidence.

Keywords:

1. Section 319 CrPC
2. Examination-in-Chief
3. Cross-Examination
4. Acquittal under Section 232 CrPC
5. Procedural Discretion

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Asim Akhtar v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 4247 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date:
18 October 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

vi) Author:
Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 911 : 2024 INSC 794

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 319 CrPC
• Section 232 CrPC
• Relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 366, 323, 506)
• Arms Act, 1950 (Section 25(1)(B)(a))

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
Order of the Calcutta High Court in CRA No. 222 of 2020

x) Case is Related to:
Criminal Procedure Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) alleging kidnapping and other related offenses. During the trial, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon additional accused. The trial court declined to decide the application until cross-examination was completed. Subsequently, the trial court acquitted the accused under Section 232 CrPC. On appeal, the High Court directed the trial court to decide the Section 319 CrPC application based on the examination-in-chief alone, setting aside the acquittal. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the High Court’s interpretation of Section 319 CrPC was legally tenable.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Respondent No. 2 filed an FIR alleging that the appellant attempted to kidnap her. Charges were framed under Sections 366, 323, 506 IPC and Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1950.
2. During the trial, the examination-in-chief of the victim and her parents was recorded.
3. An application under Section 319 CrPC was filed by the complainant to summon the appellant’s parents as additional accused.
4. The complainant and other prosecution witnesses repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination despite summons and adjournments.
5. The trial court acquitted the appellant under Section 232 CrPC, citing a lack of admissible evidence and rejected the Section 319 CrPC application.
6. The High Court reversed this order, mandating the trial court to first decide the Section 319 CrPC application based solely on the examination-in-chief.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the trial court must decide an application under Section 319 CrPC before completing cross-examination of witnesses.
2. Whether examination-in-chief alone suffices as evidence for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
3. Whether the trial court’s acquittal of the accused under Section 232 CrPC was legally valid.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant contended that the trial court acted within its discretion by postponing the decision on the Section 319 CrPC application until cross-examination was completed.
2. It was argued that cross-examination is essential to test the veracity of evidence before summoning additional accused.
3. The appellant asserted that the prosecution’s failure to present witnesses for cross-examination left the trial court with no choice but to acquit under Section 232 CrPC.
4. The High Court’s interpretation of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 was challenged as inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s observations.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondent emphasized that Hardeep Singh mandates deciding Section 319 CrPC applications based on examination-in-chief alone.
2. They argued that delaying decisions on such applications causes undue hardship to complainants and impedes justice.
3. The respondent contended that the trial court should have prioritized the Section 319 CrPC application to summon the accused’s parents before proceeding with the trial.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The Court held that Section 319 CrPC permits reliance on examination-in-chief as evidence but does not mandate summoning additional accused before cross-examination.
2. The trial court has the discretion to defer decisions on Section 319 CrPC applications until cross-examination is completed.
3. Acquittal under Section 232 CrPC was valid due to the prosecution’s failure to produce admissible evidence.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Insistence on summoning additional accused without cross-examination undermines judicial discretion and procedural fairness.

c. Guidelines Issued

1. Trial courts retain discretion under Section 319 CrPC to decide applications post-cross-examination.
2. Examination-in-chief is evidence, but its weight depends on cross-examination.
3. Procedural delays caused by the prosecution cannot hinder the rights of the accused.

I) CONCLUSION AND COMMENTS

The judgment reaffirms judicial discretion in deciding Section 319 CrPC applications and underscores the importance of cross-examination in assessing evidence. It also discourages procedural delays and misuse of judicial mechanisms by prosecution witnesses.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92
2. Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq (2007) 14 SCC 544

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Arms Act, 1950