Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2025: Section 319 CrPC Judgement

Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 case gained attention because it dealt with the delicate balance between protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring justice for victims especially in cases where new evidence emerges mid-trial. It also highlighted the misuse of alibi defences at premature stages and raised concerns over judicial overreach by High Courts. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 Introduction

Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court that explained the scope and evidentiary threshold for invoking Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows a court to summon additional accused based on trial evidence. The case revolved around a tragic sequence of events beginning with an acid attack and culminating in an alleged suicide which led to complex issues involving alibi, eyewitness testimony and procedural safeguards.

Download Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 PDF

The case at hand centres around the summoning of an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on fresh evidence that arose during trial. It addressed important questions about the extent of the powers of the Trial Court to summon a person not named in the chargesheet and the standards of evidence required for such summoning, particularly in light of an alibi defence and prior police exoneration. The following are the facts of Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab -

Background of the Acid Attack Incident (13th March 2016)

On 13th March 2016, ten individuals allegedly carried out an acid attack on Dharminder Singh. The police registered a First Information Report under Section 323, Section 324, Section 341, Section 506, Section 148, Section 149 and Section 326-A of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent no. 2 (Varinder Singh) was not named in this FIR.

Alleged Provocation Leading to Suicide (10th May 2016)

On 10th May 2016, around 8:30 a.m., Dharminder Singh and his paternal uncle Jagdev Singh stood near their abadi land on Jagowal Road. Gurmail Singh, Varinder Singh (respondent no. 2), Santokh Singh, Iqbal Singh and one unidentified individual allegedly arrived in a white car and taunted Dharminder. They reportedly told him and his family that they "should die of shame" for not taking action against the accused in the acid attack.
Feeling humiliated, Dharminder returned home, locked himself in a room and left alone around 4:00 p.m.

Recovery of Body and Registration of FIR (13th May 2016)

When Dharminder did not return by evening, his family and villagers looked for him. They discovered his bicycle, clothes and footwear near the Hussainpur canal. On 13th May, 2016, his body was recovered from the Salar canal head. His father filed a complaint which led to the registration of FIR under Section 306 and Section 34 IPC, naming respondent no. 2 as one of the accused.

Police Investigation and Closure Report (2nd August 2016)

Respondent no. 2 claimed an alibi, produced a parking slip, outpatient records, a medicine bill, and CCTV footage from PGI Chandigarh, which showed his presence there from 6:30 a.m. on 10th May, 2016. The investigating officer accepted this alibi and on 2nd August, 2016, filed a final report under Section 173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, categorising Respondent no. 2 as "innocent." The police committed only the remaining accused to trial.

First Summoning and High Court Quashment (2017–2021)

On 20th January, 2017, the Trial Court summoned respondent no. 2 under Section 193 of Criminal Procedure Code based on an application by the Public Prosecutor. Respondent no. 2 challenged this in the High Court. On 24th November 2021, the High Court quashed the summoning for lack of a committal order but granted liberty to invoke Section 319 CrPC if new evidence emerged during the trial.

Testimony and Section 319 CrPC Application (March–July 2022)

On 8th March, 2022, the complainant deposed as PW-1 and described the 10th May, 2016 incident, directly implicating respondent no. 2. Based on this testimony and Jagdev Singh’s testimony under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 CrPC.
On 4th July, 2022, the Trial Court allowed the application and found that the evidence disclosed a prima facie case. It summoned respondent no. 2 to face trial under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and noted that the alibi was a matter for trial evaluation.

High Court Quashes Summoning Again (21st November 2023)

Respondent no. 2 once again approached the High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and argued that the Trial Court had disregarded strong documentary proof supporting his alibi. On 21st November, 2023, the High Court accepted this argument and quashed the summoning order. It held that the materials presented did not satisfy the threshold under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code and that the Trial Court had overlooked the investigation record and exculpatory evidence.

Appeal in Supreme Court

The appellant approached the Supreme Court contended among other grounds, that the High Court had misapplied the legal standard required for invoking powers under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code and erred in premature evaluation of an untested plea of alibi and failed to give due weight to the direct eyewitness evidence available on record. These grievances have brought the matter Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.

The following issues were addressed in Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 -

• Threshold for Summoning Under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code

The Supreme Court examined whether the standard of proof required to summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must meet the threshold of prima facie evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt.

• Scope of Judicial Interference by High Courts

The Court in Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab analysed whether the High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash the summoning order of the Trial Court on the basis of an unproven alibi, especially at the pre-trial stage.

https://cdn.testbook.com/1746687042842-Image_1%20%2813%29.png/1746687043.png

• Evidentiary Value of Defence Documents at Summoning Stage

The Court explored whether documents submitted by the proposed accused (such as parking slips, OPD cards, CCTV footage) can be relied upon at the summoning stage.

• Timing and Plea of Alibi

Lastly, the Apex Court in Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab also examined whether a plea of alibi can be considered a conclusive defence at the summoning stage or whether it is a matter to be established during the course of the trial by the accused.

Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 Legal Provisions

Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code played an important role in Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2025. The following is the analysis of this provision -

• Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code

Section 319 (Now Section 358 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) empowers a court to proceed against any person not being the accused who appears to have committed an offence based on evidence during trial.

Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code is essential to the Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab case as the Trial Court summoned Respondent No. 2 as an additional accused under this provision. The Supreme Court examined whether prima facie evidence is sufficient for such summoning.

Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 Judgment and Impact

On 6th May, 2025, the 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice KV Viswanathan in Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab held that to summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, it is not necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the presence of prima facie evidence suggesting the individual's involvement in the offence is sufficient to justify summoning.

The Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan noted that demanding a higher standard of proof at the summoning stage such as a confession would be unreasonable. The Court highlighted that the law only requires an "appearance of involvement" based on the evidence already on record.

The Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab case arose after the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the order of the Trial Court summoning Respondent No.2 as an additional accused in an abetment to suicide case. The High Court had accepted the proposed accused’s plea of alibi and concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to invoke Section 319 CrPC.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the plea of alibi is a defence to be proved during trial and not at the preliminary summoning stage. The Court in Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab noted that documents such as parking chits, medical receipts and CCTV footage, which were presented in support of the alibi, had not yet been formally tested in court. Therefore, treating them as conclusive at the summoning stage would distort the criminal trial process.

On the basis of the above findings, the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab set aside the order of the High Court and restored the decision of the Trial Court and allowed the summoning of Respondent No.2 as an additional accused in the case.

Conclusion

In Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 the Supreme Court on 6th May, 2025 reaffirmed that prima facie evidence is sufficient for summoning under Section 319 CrPC and that defences like alibi must be examined during the trial and not at the threshold stage. The Court restored the summoning order of the Trial Court and set aside the quashing order of the High Court.