Woman Accused In Suicide Note: Rajasthan HC Quashes Her Summoning After Co-Accused’s Trial Began, Says Section 193 Cannot Replace Section 319

Narender Singh died by suicide on 13 June 2013, leaving a note naming three persons, including Deshna Bhansali.

She was initially included in the charge-sheet for an offence under Section 306 IPC, but, after further investigation, the police excluded her and applied under Section 169 CrPC.

The Magistrate accepted that application and discharged her bail bonds on 4 February 2014; the case was committed to the Sessions Court against the other two accused.

The Sessions Court framed charges against those accused on 14 May 2014.

The complainant later sought to arraign Bhansali under Section 193 CrPC; on 5 November 2019, the Sessions Court allowed the application and issued a warrant.

A further order dated 16 December 2021 directed steps to obtain information about her property to secure her presence.

Section 193 CrPC empowers the Court of Session, upon committal, to take cognizance as a court of original jurisdiction and proceed against a person not sent up for trial, where the police papers disclose that person’s involvement; the police’s opinion does not bind the court (*Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana*).

Section 319 CrPC provides the mechanism for summoning an additional accused on the basis of evidence emerging during an inquiry or trial.

*Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab* recognises that trial commences upon framing of charges and distinguishes that stage from the preceding inquiry.

The judgment held that, once charges have been framed and trial has commenced, Section 193 cannot be used as a substitute for Section 319 to summon an additional accused on the basis of investigative material.

The Sessions Court decided the Section 193 application nearly five years after framing charges against the co-accused.

The suicide note and Section 161 statements relied on to summon Bhansali were part of the investigation papers, not evidence emerging before the court during trial.

In the High Court’s view, Section 193 was therefore unavailable at that procedural stage; any later application to summon her had to satisfy Section 319 and be based on evidence brought before the court in the course of inquiry or trial.

The orders concerning her presence and property were consequential to the invalid summoning order and could not independently survive.

It left the merits of the allegations open and clarified that the trial court could proceed against her under Section 319 CrPC if the statutory requirements were met on the basis of evidence before it during the inquiry or trial.