In a significant judgment that clarifies the extent of a trial court’s powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Supreme Court ruled that a “clean chit” by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) cannot act as a legal bar for summoning persons to face trial if credible evidence emerges during the proceedings. The Court observed that “while an innocent person should not be punished, no guilty person should go scot-free.”
The verdict came in the matter of Yadwinder Singh vs Lakhi @ Lakhwinder Singh & Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos. ___ of 2025, arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 14822-14829 of 2024], decided by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Case Background
The case originates from FIR No. 50 of 2020 registered at Police Station Passiana, District Patiala, Punjab, regarding the murder of the appellant Yadwinder Singh’s brother, a sitting Sarpanch. According to the FIR, 24 individuals allegedly arrived in three cars and forcibly pulled the deceased out of a vehicle before fatally assaulting him.
The trial court, on the basis of deposition by eyewitnesses (including the informant and his brother), exercised its powers under Section 319 CrPC to summon several private respondents, including Lakhi alias Lakhwinder Singh, as additional accused. However, this order was set aside by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on July 18, 2024 [2024 SCC OnLine P&H 11673], prompting the appeal to the apex court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
For the Appellant (Yadwinder Singh):
Represented by Mr. Jitesh Malik, Advocate (with Ms. Anisha Dahiya, Mr. Jatin Hooda, and others), it was argued that the trial court had rightly summoned the private respondents based on credible eyewitness testimonies. He submitted that despite the SIT report exonerating the respondents, material evidence had emerged during trial linking them to the crime.
Malik emphasized that Section 319 empowers courts to proceed against non-accused individuals if, during the trial, evidence suggests their involvement. He also alleged that the SIT was politically influenced, as the incident had political overtones.
For the Respondents:
Senior Advocate Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the private respondents, argued that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be used sparingly and only when “strong and cogent evidence” exists. He contended that the FIR’s claim about 24 people arriving in three cars was “improbable and impractical” and highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements, including changes about who was present in the vehicle at the time of the murder.
He also relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 SCC 706], asserting that the mere repetition of allegations in the examination-in-chief is not sufficient for summoning new accused, especially when the SIT and CCTV footage had placed them elsewhere at the time of the incident.
The Supreme Court’s Findings
In its detailed Reportable Judgment, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s order and allowed the criminal appeals, restoring the trial court’s decision to summon the additional accused.
“Trial being an exercise to unravel the truth, given the depositions before the Trial Court, to absolve the private respondents based on the SIT’s findings alone may not be in the best interests of justice,” the bench noted.
The Court reaffirmed principles from Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] and Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab [(2023) 1 SCC 289], emphasizing that the power under Section 319 is extraordinary and should be used with caution — but it can be triggered even at the stage of examination-in-chief.
Quoting from Hardeep Singh, the Court reiterated:
“The duty of the court is to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless.”
The Court held that the SIT’s findings — though relevant — do not override the trial court’s discretion to summon based on evidence adduced during trial, particularly eyewitness testimonies.
Key Observations
- Section 319 CrPC allows summoning of non-accused persons based on evidence recorded during trial.
- SIT’s conclusions are not binding on the court’s independent assessment of trial evidence.
- Fresh trial will commence for the summoned accused, ensuring full rights of defence and cross-examination under Section 319(4) CrPC.
- “The hardship, were we to adjudge it at this juncture, could be more if the private respondents are not summoned than opposed to if they are,” the bench stated.
Court’s Direction
The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to issue fresh summons to the private respondents. In case of non-appearance, it shall take all necessary steps to secure their presence and proceed in accordance with law.
The Court also rebuked the State of Punjab for failing to appear and assist the Court despite being served notice, reminding that the State has a statutory duty to prosecute and aid the administration of justice in criminal matters.
“No guilty person should go scot-free,” the Court underlined in its closing remarks.
Case Details
- Case Title: Yadwinder Singh vs Lakhi alias Lakhwinder Singh & Ors.
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. ___ of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 14822-14829/2024)
- Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
- Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Jitesh Malik, Ms. Anisha Dahiya & team
- Respondents’ Counsel: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan (Sr. Adv), Mr. Saurabh Singh Chauhan, Mr. Karan Kapoor, and others
