Supreme Court Restores Summoning Order In Abetment Of Suicide Case; Says Telling A Physically Challenged Man That He Should Die Is Not Banter

The Court set aside the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had set aside an Order summoning the accused to face trial under Section 306 and 34 of the IPC. The Court revived the decision of the Trial Court summoning the accused, who allegedly taunted the deceased, stating that he and his family “should die of shame” for not having taken action against the acid-attack assailants.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice KV Viswanathan held, “We believe that the High Court, in interfering under Section 482 CrPC, placed decisive reliance on the investigation dossier and characterised the 10 May 2016 episode as mere “teasing”. Such a description underplays both the content and the effect of the words spoken. If the allegations is true, telling a physically challenged man that he and his family should die, and doing so in the immediate aftermath of a grievous acid attack, is not banter. Sensitivity to the social context, where honour and shame weigh heavily, was called for. The offence, no doubt, will have to be established at the trial.”

Advocates G Balaji represented the Appellant, while AOR Siddhant Sharma appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

During the investigation, the police accepted the plea of alibi presented by the accused, who furnished documents such as a parking-lot slip, outpatient records, a medicine bill, and CCTV footage from PGI Chandigarh. The investigating officer filed a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC, classifying the accused as ‘innocent’.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court stated, “The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. 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 clarified, “If, in the midst of that trial, evidence implicating a new participant surfaces, the Court is duty-bound to act on it. Section 319 CrPC would be rendered otiose if an Investigating Officer’s earlier opinion could freeze the array of accused for all time.”

“It was next argued that PW-1’s deposition merely reproduces the FIR. We are unable to agree. A first information report is only an initial version; a statement under oath, recorded in Court, is substantive evidence. 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. That threshold was satisfied here,” the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “The order of the Trial Court dated 04 July 2022 summoning respondent no. 2 to stand trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC shall stand revived. Respondent no. 2 shall appear before the Trial Court within four weeks from today and thereafter abide by all further orders of the Trial Court. It will be open to the Trial Court to regulate the conditions of his release, if any application for bail is moved, in accordance with law.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Harjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 634)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR G Balaji

Respondents: AOR Siddhant Sharma and Chritarth Palli

Click here to read/download the Judgment