Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2022)

The case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab is a landmark judgement that clarifies the scope and application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Section 319 provides power to the courts to summon a person who is not already an accused if, during the course of an inquiry or trial, evidence emerges that such a person has also committed an offence.

For years, there was uncertainty regarding the exact stage at which this power could be exercised, the extent of its applicability, and whether it could be invoked after the trial had concluded. This case settled the ambiguity by laying down clear rules and guidelines. The decision is significant for criminal jurisprudence as it balances two competing principles: ensuring that no offender escapes justice and protecting the finality of judicial proceedings.

Factual Background of Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab

1. On 5 March 2015, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against eleven persons. They were accused of offences under various provisions of the NDPS Act, Section 66 of the IT Act, and Section 25-A of the Arms Act.
2. The charge sheet filed on 6 September 2015 included only ten of these persons; the present appellant, Sukhpal Singh Khaira, was not named.
3. A second charge sheet was also filed but once again did not include the appellant.
4. During the trial, the witnesses initially did not implicate the appellant in their depositions.
5. The prosecution then filed an application under Section 311 CrPC to recall two witnesses, PW-4 and PW-5. The court permitted the recall, and upon re-examination, these witnesses identified the appellant as being involved.
6. Based on this new testimony, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC, requesting the trial court to summon the appellant as an additional accused.
7. The Sessions Judge allowed the application and summoned the appellant.
8. The appellant challenged this order on the ground that he was summoned after the order in the case had already been passed.
9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant.
10. The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court of India through an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether a Sessions Judge or Trial Court has the power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC when the trial has already concluded and judgement has been rendered.
2. Whether a Sessions Judge can summon an individual as an additional accused when the trial of other absconding accused persons is still pending after bifurcation from the main trial.
3. What guidelines should be followed by courts while exercising the power under Section 319 CrPC.

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments of the Appellant

• The counsel argued that the summoning order violated Section 319 CrPC, as it was passed at a stage when the trial had already concluded.
• Reliance was placed on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), where the Supreme Court had held that the power under Section 319 must be exercised before judgement is pronounced.
• It was further contended that Section 353(1) CrPC supports this interpretation because it provides that judgement is to be pronounced at the end of trial, which implies that Section 319 power exists only during pendency of trial.
• Summoning an accused after conclusion of trial amounts to procedural irregularity and violates the rights of the accused.

Arguments of the Respondent

• The counsel for the State argued that the purpose of Section 319 is to ensure that no guilty person escapes trial.
• The court retains power to summon an accused as long as the process of judgement, including sentencing, is incomplete.
• It was also argued that even if the application under Section 319 and the final judgement were decided on the same day, the court would still have jurisdiction because it does not immediately become functus officio (i.e., powerless).
• Section 354 CrPC was referred to, emphasising that sentencing is part of the judgement and until sentence is passed, the trial is incomplete.

Legal Provisions Discussed

Section 319 CrPC

• Empowers a court to summon any person not being an accused if evidence indicates their involvement.
• Proceedings against such a person shall commence afresh and witnesses shall be re-heard.
• Provides discretion to conduct a joint trial or a separate trial.
• Requires the court to be satisfied based on evidence recorded in the trial.

Section 353(1) CrPC

• Mandates that judgement shall be pronounced in open court after completion of trial.
• Pronouncement may be done by delivering the full judgement, reading it in full, or reading only the operative part with explanation.

Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab Judgement

On Power After Judgement

• The Constitution Bench held that the power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised before pronouncement of judgement.
• In cases of conviction, the summoning order must precede the order of sentence.
• In cases of acquittal, the summoning order must precede the order of acquittal.
• Once judgement is pronounced, the trial concludes, and no further summoning can be done.

On Trials of Absconding Accused

• The Sessions Court retains power to summon an additional accused where trials of absconding accused are pending.
• However, such summoning must be based on evidence recorded in the ongoing proceedings, not evidence from the concluded main trial.

On Guidelines

The Court laid down a set of practical guidelines for exercising power under Section 319:

1. If evidence indicates involvement of another person, the trial should be paused at that stage.
2. The court must first evaluate whether summoning is necessary.
3. If summoning is ordered, it must be done before continuation of the main trial.
4. The court must decide whether to conduct a joint trial or a separate trial.
5. In a joint trial, proceedings should begin only after the presence of the summoned accused is secured.
6. In a separate trial, the main case may continue and conclude independently.
7. If Section 319 is invoked after arguments are concluded and the matter is reserved for judgement, the court should order a re-hearing.
8. In case of a joint trial after re-hearing, proceedings must be conducted afresh.
9. The power should be exercised only if sufficient evidence is available.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2022) has provided long-awaited clarity on the scope of Section 319 CrPC. The Court made it clear that the power to summon an additional accused must be exercised only during the pendency of trial and not after the judgement has been pronounced.