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

The landmark case of Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab (2014) focuses on the interpretation and application of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). This provision empowers courts to summon individuals as additional accused if evidence during an inquiry or trial implicates them in the offence. The Supreme Court’s judgement provides clarity on the scope, extent, and procedural nuances of this section, resolving conflicting precedents and setting the standard for its application.

Facts of Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab

• Background: In this case, the appellant, Hardeep Singh, faced criminal charges involving assault and damage to property. The incident occurred on June 24, 2004, when the appellant was ploughing leased land. The accused individuals arrived armed with deadly weapons and inflicted injuries on him and other witnesses. An FIR was lodged, and charges under Sections 326, 336, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were applied.
• Key Legal Issue: Two individuals, initially discharged after an inquiry, were sought to be added as accused during the trial under Section 319 CrPC. Both the trial court and the High Court rejected this application, citing insufficient evidence to proceed against the individuals. The matter was escalated to the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab were:

1. At what stage can the power under Section 319 CrPC be invoked?
2. Does the term “evidence” in Section 319 include only cross-examined statements, or can it encompass examination-in-chief?
3. Can “evidence” under Section 319 CrPC include materials from the investigation, or is it restricted to evidence recorded during the trial?
4. What level of satisfaction is required to exercise the power under Section 319?
5. Can Section 319 CrPC be applied to individuals not named in the FIR, excluded from the charge sheet, or discharged?

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Contentions

• The appellant argued that there was sufficient evidence to implicate the two individuals, who were armed and complicit in the incident.
• Section 319 CrPC allows summoning individuals not named in the FIR if evidence during the trial establishes their involvement.
• The rejection by the lower courts resulted in a miscarriage of justice, as real offenders were not being prosecuted.

Respondent’s Contentions

• The respondents defended the decisions of the trial court and High Court, arguing that these judgements were based on factual and legal considerations.
• They contended that there was no evidence implicating the individuals who were discharged.
• They emphasised that invoking Section 319 required compelling evidence, which was absent in this case.

Supreme Court’s Observations in Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab

The Court in Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab undertook a detailed examination of the scope of Section 319 CrPC, its legislative intent, and conflicting judgements on the subject. The judgement addressed key legal principles and procedural issues.

Stage of Invocation of Section 319 CrPC

• The term “inquiry” under Section 319 begins after the filing of the charge sheet and includes the process before the commencement of the trial.
• The “trial” is considered to start when charges are framed.
• Section 319 can be invoked during both the inquiry and trial stages, but not during procedural stages like Sections 207 and 208 (administrative functions of supplying documents to the accused).
• The Court concluded that the power to summon additional accused can be exercised after the inquiry begins and continues until the conclusion of the trial.

Meaning of “Evidence” in Section 319 CrPC

• The Court interpreted “evidence” broadly to include statements made during examination-in-chief. Waiting for cross-examination is unnecessary for invoking Section 319.
• The Court clarified that statements recorded during trial are sufficient for a court to form an opinion regarding an individual’s complicity in the offence.
• The judgement overturned the misinterpretation of prior cases, emphasising that reliance on examination-in-chief is legally valid.

Scope of Evidence: Trial vs. Investigation

• Evidence collected during the investigation cannot be used directly to invoke Section 319. Instead, it can only corroborate evidence presented during the trial.
• The term “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC refers to oral and documentary evidence produced in court during the trial or inquiry.
• The Court held that materials like case diaries or charge sheets cannot form the sole basis for summoning additional accused.

Level of Satisfaction Required

• The Court highlighted that the standard of satisfaction under Section 319 is higher than prima facie but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The decision to summon additional accused must be based on compelling evidence that indicates their involvement in the offence.
• The Court emphasised judicial discretion, noting that the term “may” in Section 319 provides flexibility to assess whether invoking this provision is appropriate.

Applicability to Specific Persons

• Individuals Not Named in the FIR or Charge Sheet: The Court held that individuals not initially named can be summoned if trial evidence implicates them.
• Discharged Individuals:  The Court ruled that discharged individuals could be summoned under Section 319, provided evidence presented during the trial establishes their complicity. The procedure for summoning discharged persons requires careful scrutiny to prevent abuse of power.

Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab Judgement 

The Supreme Court, in its judgement, clarified several contentious issues surrounding Section 319 CrPC:

1. Section 319 can be invoked during both inquiry and trial stages, provided compelling evidence emerges.
2. Evidence under Section 319 includes examination-in-chief statements, with no necessity for cross-examination.
3. Materials collected during the investigation can only corroborate trial evidence and cannot independently justify summoning additional accused.
4. The threshold for invoking Section 319 requires satisfaction beyond prima facie but less than certainty of conviction.
5. The provision applies to individuals not named in the FIR, excluded from the charge sheet, or discharged, subject to judicial discretion.

The Court’s interpretation ensures that no real offender escapes liability due to procedural gaps or investigative lapses. It also safeguards against misuse by requiring stringent judicial oversight.