The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the acquittal of co-accused in a criminal trial does not create a legal bar to the continued prosecution of an accused who has been declared a proclaimed offender. This judgment clarifies a critical principle in criminal procedure: each accused must be judged on the evidence presented in their own trial, regardless of outcomes in parallel proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Davinder Singh @ Sunny, sought quashing of FIR No. 314 dated 29.12.2015 registered at Police Station Sadar Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, under Sections 342, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR arose from an alleged incident of wrongful confinement and hurt. The petitioner was named as an accused alongside Surinderjit Singh and Balwinder Kaur.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on or before 29.12.2015, triggering the registration of FIR No. 314
- The petitioner absconded during the pendency of trial and was declared a proclaimed offender
- Co-accused Surinderjit Singh and Balwinder Kaur faced trial and were acquitted by the trial court on 03.01.2023
- No evidence was recorded against the petitioner during the trial of the co-accused, as he was not present and had been declared a proclaimed offender
- The petitioner has not been tried, nor has any evidence been adduced against him in a court of law
- The petitioner did not contend that his case met the exceptional criteria laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal
Procedural History
- 29.12.2015: FIR No. 314 registered at Police Station Sadar Tanda, District Hoshiarpur
- Undated (prior to 2023): Petitioner declared a proclaimed offender during trial proceedings
- 03.01.2023: Trial court acquitted co-accused Surinderjit Singh and Balwinder Kaur based on evidence adduced in their trial
- 17.04.2026: Petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. CRM-M-20158-2026 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that co-accused had been acquitted, arguing that continued prosecution against him would be unjust and violative of natural justice.
The Legal Issue
Can the acquittal of co-accused in a criminal trial, based on evidence adduced in their own proceedings, be invoked to quash the FIR against a proclaimed offender who has not faced trial?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that since the co-accused were acquitted after full trial and appreciation of evidence, the prosecution’s case against the petitioner must also fail. He argued that continuing the trial against the petitioner would amount to double jeopardy and violate the principle of consistency in judicial outcomes. He relied on the acquittal judgment as evidence of the weakness of the prosecution’s case.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the petitioner had absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender, thereby forfeiting his right to be tried alongside co-accused. The prosecution had no opportunity to adduce evidence against him during the trial of others. The acquittal of co-accused was based on evidence specific to their defense and could not be imported into the petitioner’s case. The State emphasized that Section 528 BNSS does not permit quashing merely on the basis of co-accused’ acquittal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal position on the admissibility of co-accused’ acquittal judgments under the Evidence Act and the scope of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC). It relied on binding precedents from the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court.
"In view of the foregoing discussion, we are clearly of the view that the judgment of acquittal rendered in the trial of other four accused persons is wholly irrelevant in the appeal arising out of trial of appellant - Rajan Rai as the said judgment was not admissible under the provisions of Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act. Every case has to be decided on the evidence adduced therein."
The Court held that judgments of acquittal of co-accused are not admissible under Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act to estop or bar the trial of another accused. Such judgments may only be used to establish the factum of acquittal or identity of parties, not to challenge the merits of the prosecution’s case against a different accused.
The Court further emphasized that the prosecution is not obligated to adduce evidence against an absconding accused during the trial of others. The credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, and the appreciation of facts are matters exclusively for the trial court handling the accused’s own case.
"The fact that the co-accused have secured acquittal in the trial against them in the absence of absconding co-accused cannot by itself be reckoned as a relevant circumstance while considering invocation of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
The Court also noted the petitioner’s conduct as a proclaimed offender, which undermined his claim to equitable relief. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is to be invoked only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice, not to circumvent trial on the basis of another’s acquittal.
The Court explicitly overruled the contrary view in Arun Kumar’s case, affirming that acquittal of co-accused cannot be a ground to quash proceedings against an absconding accused.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the acquittal of co-accused does not provide any legal basis to quash the FIR against the petitioner, who remains a proclaimed offender and has not faced trial. The prosecution is entitled to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of evidence to be adduced in his own trial. No relief was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Acquittal of Co-Accused Is Not a Shield
- Practitioners cannot rely on the acquittal of co-accused to seek quashing of proceedings against an absconding accused under Section 528 BNSS
- The burden remains on the accused to demonstrate exceptional circumstances under Bhajan Lal to invoke inherent jurisdiction
- Courts will not substitute their appreciation of evidence for that of the trial court merely because others were acquitted
Proclaimed Offenders Lose Procedural Advantages
- A declared proclaimed offender forfeits the right to be tried contemporaneously with co-accused
- Absconding cannot be used as a tactical delay to await favorable outcomes in others’ trials
- Courts will view such conduct as a factor against granting equitable relief under Section 528 BNSS
Evidence Must Be Trial-Specific
- Evidence adduced in one accused’s trial cannot be imported into another’s case, even if the facts are identical
- Witness credibility and evidentiary weight are assessed independently in each trial
- Prosecution is not estopped from relying on the same witnesses or documents in a subsequent trial against a different accused
