Court:
Supreme Court of India
Bench:
Justice Vikram Nath
Date of Judgment:
18th October 2024
Parties:
Asim Akhtar (Appellant) vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. (Respondents)
Subject Matter:
The case concerns the procedural propriety of invoking Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused based on untested evidence and whether the High Court erred in directing the Trial Court to decide such application before completing the cross-examination of key prosecution witnesses.
Provisions Involved
- •Section 319 CrPC: Allows a court to proceed against any person appearing to have committed an offence based on evidence during inquiry or trial.
- Sections 366, 323, 506(II) IPC: Kidnapping, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation respectively.
- Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act: Penalizes possession of arms in contravention of license requirements.
- Section 397 and 401 CrPC: Vest revisional powers in the High Court and Sessions Judge, including scrutiny of Trial Court records and legality of orders.
Facts
The appeal was from the order of the Calcutta HC, where it set aside the acquittal order made by the Trial Court and directed it to decide the application under Section 319 CrPC prior to holding the trial. Asim Akhtar, the appellant, was originally charged under Sections 366, 323, and 506(II) IPC and Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act, on a complaint that he attempted to kidnap his de facto complainant. A charge sheet was filed against him in February 2019.
Later, in the middle of trial, an application under Section 319 CrPC was made by the complainant for summoning the parents of the appellant as additional accused. The Trial Court had decided to postpone ruling on that application until cross-examination of the key prosecution witnesses was done. The High Court subsequently interfered with that discretion and overruled the acquittal, instructing the Trial Court to rule on the 319 application first. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the interference by the High Court was justified in law.
Issues for Consideration
- Can a Section 319 CrPC application be decided upon in the absence of full (including cross) examination of prosecution witnesses?
- Was the High Court right in reversing an acquittal on the basis of examination-in-chief alone without allowing cross-examination?
- Did the High Court overstep its revisional and appellate jurisdiction under Section 401 and Section 372 proviso?
Arguments from Both Sides
Appellant's Contentions:
The appellant argued that the High Court seriously went wrong in interfering at the stage of the trial which was interlocutory in nature. The Trial Court had aptly noted that the Section 319 CrPC application would have to be disposed of only upon the conclusion of the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
In their absence, cross-examination, the "evidence" adduced would be incomplete and untested. Dependng on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], the appellant contended that a court can resort to Section 319 CrPC only when a greater level of satisfaction is arrived at on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence, and not on mere allegations or partial statements.
Further, it was highlighted that the pivotal witnesses—PW1 (complainant), PW2 (her mother), and PW3 (her father)—continuously refused to come in for cross-examination even after they had been summoned several times and despite court notices, rendering it impossible for the Trial Court to assess their credibility or make a judicious finding on the 319 application.
Respondents' Contentions:
The State and the de facto complainant argued that the Section 319 CrPC application had to be accorded priority treatment and disposed of forthwith in order to avert accused persons from evading trial on account of procedural delay. They argued that the evidence submitted in the form of affidavits and examination-in-chief sufficiently implicated the accused parents and warranted their summons.
The High Court, it was contended, exercised jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC to avoid miscarriage of justice by remanding the case with directions to accord priority to considering the application.
Procedural Behavior
The proceedings of the Trial Court depicted a disturbing trend of non-cooperation on the part of prosecution witnesses. While PW1, PW2, and PW3 were cross-examined and they consistently failed to appear for cross-examination after receiving summons. On several dates and, they made requests for adjournments, even mentioning Covid-19 related matters.
The Trial Court, recognizing abuse of process, noted that the prosecution seemed unconcerned with obtaining a just trial. It aptly noted that in the absence of cross-examination, the credibility and coherence of the statements of witnesses could not be determined and thereby adjourned the 319 CrPC application.
The High Court, however, overruled this and gave precedence to the application under Section 319 CrPC, staying the acquittal and remanding the case with instructions to decide the application first, regardless of the ongoing cross-examination.
Supreme Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Vikram Nath, who gave the judgment, left no doubts that Section 319 CrPC is not a mechanical device to issue summoning new accused upon partial or untested evidence. The Court underlined that the word "evidence" in Section 319 should be strictly construed as "evidence tested by cross-examination," following the pronouncement set forth in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 16 SCC 46].
The Supreme Court faulted the High Court's method as being premature and procedurally incorrect. It observed that in a criminal trial, the right of cross-examination is a fundamental right under the rule of natural justice, and the High Court's order to continue with Section 319 without cross-examination belied the fairness of the proceedings. The Court also held that granting such procedural shortcuts can result in serious prejudice against the accused, particularly when the request is vindictive or made for ulterior motives, as suspected here because of repeated avoidance by the complainant.
Significantly, the Court emphasized that the discretion of the Trial Court had been wisely exercised while weighing the procedural requirements of law against the rights of the complainant. Denial by the Trial Court of determining the Section 319 CrPC application on incomplete evidence was not only valid but also requisite. Interference by the High Court at the time was a case of judicial overreach.
