Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal, setting aside the Calcutta High Court’s order and restoring the Trial Court’s acquittal of the appellant. The Court held that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and proceeding with the acquittal due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination.
Facts:
- The case arose from an FIR filed by the complainant alleging that the appellant attempted to kidnap them. The charges were filed under Sections 366, 323, and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act.
- During the trial, key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, appeared for examination-in-chief but repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination, despite multiple summons and adjournments.
- The complainant sought to summon the parents of the accused under Section 319 CrPC but insisted that this application be decided before the cross-examination of witnesses.
Issues:
- Whether the application under Section 319 CrPC should be decided before or after the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.
- Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC and acquitting the accused.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The petitioner contended that the application under Section 319 CrPC must be decided based on the examination-in-chief alone, without waiting for cross-examination.
- The petitioner insisted on summoning additional accused (the appellant’s parents) and argued that cross-examination should be deferred until this application was resolved.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The State argued that the trial should proceed with the cross-examination of witnesses, and the Section 319 CrPC application should not be decided prematurely.
- The Public Prosecutor opposed the complainant’s demand for immediate disposal of the application without completing the cross-examination.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court analyzed the law governing Section 319 CrPC and clarified that the power to summon additional accused could be exercised even after the examination-in-chief. However, it held that there is no mandate requiring the application to be decided solely based on the examination-in-chief without cross-examination. The decision to wait for cross-examination is at the discretion of the Trial Court.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014), which clarified that while examination-in-chief constitutes evidence, it does not compel the Court to decide on a Section 319 application without awaiting cross-examination.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Trial Court made repeated efforts to ensure the appearance of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. The witnesses’ continued absence, despite summons, and their insistence on first deciding the Section 319 application suggested a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings. The Court held that the Trial Court was correct in rejecting the application for lack of admissible evidence and proceeding with the acquittal under Section 232 CrPC.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Trial Court’s judgment. The High Court’s order to remand the case was set aside, and the acquittal of the appellant was upheld.
Implications:
This ruling reinforces that the decision to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC remains discretionary and must consider the overall conduct of the trial, including whether witnesses have been cross-examined. It emphasizes that delaying cross-examination to decide on a Section 319 application is not mandatory, and acquittals can proceed in cases where prosecution witnesses fail to comply with court summons.
