The
Supreme Court ruled that under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., an additional
accused can be summoned based on prima facie evidence suggesting their
involvement in the offence, and it is not required to prove their guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt at that stage.
“Indeed,
it is difficult to conceive of what stronger material could be demanded at the
summoning stage short of a confession. The threshold is not proof beyond
reasonable doubt; it is the appearance of involvement which is apparent from
evidence adduced in the proceeding.” the court said.
The
bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan was adjudicating a
matter where the complainant challenged the Punjab & Haryana High Court's
decision, which had overturned the trial court's order summoning Respondent
No.2 (the “proposed accused”) as an additional accused in a pending abetment to
suicide case.
Respondent
No.2 had taken the defence of an alibi. However, the trial court, relying on
other compelling pieces of evidence that cast doubt on the veracity of the
alibi, determined that the authenticity of such a defence ought to be evaluated
during the trial. Accordingly, the trial court summoned Respondent No.2 as an
additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court, however,
intervened and quashed the summoning order, holding that the trial court failed
to adequately consider the documentary evidence supporting the alibi and that
the material on record was insufficient to invoke Section 319.
In
setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court, through a judgment
authored by Justice Vikram Nath, reaffirmed that for summoning an additional
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the requirement is the existence of prima
facie evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the
material on record was sufficient to justify the trial court's summoning of
Respondent No.2, as it indicated a reasonable link warranting their inclusion
in the proceedings. The Court further clarified that the High Court had erred
in relying on the alibi defence at the summoning stage, emphasizing that a plea
of alibi is a matter of defence that should be evaluated during the trial
itself and not be the basis for rejecting a summoning order at the preliminary
stage.
“An
alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish
it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking
chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved.
Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To
treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of
criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before
the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence.” the court said.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and restored the
trial court's order summoning the Respondent No.2 as an additional accused.
info@adhwaitha.com