Alibi Is a Trial Defence, Not Gospel Truth: Supreme Court Restores Summons in Abetment to Suicide Case

Case Summary

• Case Name: Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

• Date of Judgment: 6 May 2025

• Citation: 2025 INSC 634

• Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

• Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath

• Appeal: Criminal Appeal (arising from SLP (Criminal) No. 1891 of 2024)

• Appellant: Harjinder Singh (father of the deceased Dharminder Singh)

• Respondents: State of Punjab and Varinder Singh

• Key Provisions Involved:

  • Section 306 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

  • Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

  • Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• Cited Judgements:

  • Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92

  • Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah v. State of Gujarat (2011) 13 SCC 316

Context and Core Dispute

This judgment arises out of a tragic incident involving the suicide of Dharminder Singh, allegedly provoked by persistent taunting and mental harassment after surviving an acid attack. The appeal—filed by the deceased’s father, Harjinder Singh—challenges the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision dated 21 November 2023, which quashed the Trial Court’s order summoning Varinder Singh (Respondent No. 2) under Section 319 CrPC to face trial for abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.

The central question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidentiary threshold required for invoking Section 319 CrPC, particularly when the impugned person had been previously discharged based on documentary evidence supporting an alibi.

Factual Matrix

The case has a deeply disturbing background. Dharminder Singh had been the victim of an acid attack on 13 March 2016. However, Varinder Singh (Respondent No. 2) was not named in the original FIR (No. 30 of 2016) that addressed this attack.

Subsequently, on 10 May 2016, the deceased was reportedly taunted by Varinder Singh and his companions, telling him and his family to “die of shame” for their inaction against the attackers. That same day, he left home in a disturbed mental state and his body was later recovered from a canal. His father then filed FIR No. 51 of 2016 under Sections 306/34 IPC, naming Varinder Singh.

Although Respondent No. 2 produced alibi documents—including hospital records and CCTV footage placing him in Chandigarh on the relevant date—the Trial Court summoned him under Section 319 CrPC in July 2022 based on fresh testimonies, including the sworn statement of the father (PW-1) and Jagdev Singh under Section 161 CrPC.

High Court’s Reversal and the Present Appeal

Varinder Singh challenged the summoning order under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court sided with him, stating that mere corroboration by prosecution witnesses was insufficient against strong alibi evidence. It ruled that the Trial Court had failed to meet the standard required under Section 319, which demands “strong and cogent” evidence before summoning someone not already arraigned.

This triggered the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath delivered a meticulous and well-reasoned judgment, ultimately setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the Trial Court’s summoning order.

On the Standard of Evidence under Section 319 CrPC

The Court placed substantial reliance on the Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, where it was held that:

“The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary. It ought to be exercised sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence arises against a person not arraigned in the original charge sheet.”

However, the Court clarified that this “strong and cogent evidence” need not be irrefutable or conclusive. It only requires evidence that, if unrebutted, would reasonably lead to conviction.

“At the stage of Section 319, the court is not required to evaluate defences such as alibi or contradiction in depth—it merely assesses whether the deposition before it makes out a prima facie case.”

This became a key pivot in distinguishing the roles of a Trial Court and a Revisional Court.

Evaluating the High Court’s Error

The Hon’ble Court took the view that the High Court had stepped into the role of the trial judge prematurely. Instead of limiting itself to reviewing the material on record to ascertain whether the summoning order was perverse or irrational, it conducted a mini-trial on the alibi evidence.

“The High Court was not sitting in appeal over the Trial Court’s order. It erroneously weighed the parking slips and CCTV footage as conclusive proof, ignoring the testimony of two witnesses who were available for cross-examination at trial.”

The Supreme Court reiterated that once the Trial Court had found the appellant’s testimony and Jagdev Singh’s statement to form a prima facie case, its order could not be labelled as perverse merely because contrary documentary material was available.

Observations on Alibi at the Summoning Stage

One of the standout insights in the judgment is the handling of the alibi claim.

“Alibi is a defence that can only be tested through trial. Treating it as gospel truth without cross-examination or scrutiny undermines the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings.”

This addresses a growing trend of High Courts quashing summons based on untested materials without letting the trial process unfold.

Implications for Criminal Jurisprudence

The judgment affirms the critical procedural safeguard offered by Section 319 CrPC—preventing culpable individuals from escaping trial solely due to investigative lapses or evidentiary gaps in the original charge sheet. It reiterates the judiciary’s commitment to not treating unverified defences as exculpatory at the pre-trial stage.

The judgment is also a cautionary tale for High Courts exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court emphasised that these inherent powers should not be used to override trial court findings merely on the basis of alternative interpretations.

Key Takeaways for Legal Professionals

1. Clarification on Section 319 Threshold: The decision draws a fine distinction between “suspicion” and “prima facie evidence,” reinforcing that judicial discretion must lean towards facilitating trial rather than curbing it prematurely.

2. Limits of Section 482 CrPC: The judgment acts as a restraint on High Courts, warning them against assuming the role of trial courts, especially in evaluating evidence not subjected to adversarial testing.

3. Handling of Alibi: The reiteration that alibi must be tested in trial—and not be accepted at face value during pre-trial motions—will serve as guidance in countless pending matters where accused persons invoke similar grounds.

4. Reaffirmation of Victim’s Role: The Court’s willingness to allow a victim’s testimony to reactivate proceedings against previously discharged individuals reaffirms the expanding role of victim-participation in India’s criminal justice system.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. is a principled and precedent-aligned intervention that restores procedural sanctity. It carefully preserves the autonomy of trial courts in summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC while reining in expansive use of Section 482 CrPC by High Courts. Most importantly, it reflects an institutional empathy towards victims seeking accountability where the investigative process may have faltered.

As criminal trials in India continue to face delays, inconsistent investigative quality, and overburdened courts, this judgment stands out as a reaffirmation of judicial prudence, procedural fairness, and the need to let trials unfold before conclusions are drawn.