Harjinder Singh v. The State of Punjab
Background
After Dharminder Singh survived an acid attack in March 2016, he was allegedly confronted and taunted in May 2016 by a group, including Varinder Singh, who said that he and his family should die of shame for not retaliating against the attackers. Distraught, he left home that evening and was later found dead in a canal. Although Varinder Singh was named in the FIR for abetment to suicide, the police accepted his alibi, records placing him at a hospital in Chandigarh, and did not chargesheet him. During the trial, the complainant-father's sworn testimony directly implicated Varinder Singh, prompting the Trial Court to summon him under Section 319 CrPC; the High Court, however, quashed that summoning order, favouring the untested alibi evidence.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's summoning order, holding that an alibi is a defence whose burden lies on the accused and must be proved through evidence tested at trial. It cannot be accepted as conclusive at the threshold from documents that were never formally proved or cross-examined. Sworn courtroom testimony is substantive evidence stronger than an FIR, and here it disclosed a prima facie case sufficient to meet the standard for invoking Section 319 CrPC, which exists precisely to prevent a real participant in a crime from escaping trial. The High Court had prematurely weighed an unproven defence over live evidence and thereby wrongly shielded a potential accused from facing trial.
Lesson Learnt
An alibi accepted by the police during investigation is not the final word. If sworn testimony given in court later implicates a person directly, the trial court can and should summon that person to stand trial under Section 319 CrPC, leaving the alibi to be tested through cross-examination rather than treated as proven fact.