The appeal arose from a judgment dated August 11, 2022, by the Calcutta High Court, which reversed a Trial Court's acquittal of the accused, Asim Akhtar. The initial complaint, filed by respondent No. 2, alleged that the appellant attempted to kidnap him, resulting in charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. Following an investigation, the case proceeded to trial, where witness testimonies became a focal point of contention.

During the trial, the Examination-in-Chief of the complainant and their family members was conducted, but their cross-examination was repeatedly deferred. The complainant filed an application under Section 319 CrPC, seeking to summon the appellant's parents as additional accused. However, the key witnesses failed to appear for cross-examination despite receiving court summons, leading the Trial Court to express frustration over their absence.

The Trial Court noted the consistent failure of the witnesses to present themselves, ultimately leading to a decision to close the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court ruled that the evidence collected was inadmissible for lacking proper cross-examination, leading to the acquittal of the accused based on the absence of sufficient evidence.

Respondent No. 2 subsequently appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The High Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, which clarified that the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised based on the Examination-in-Chief alone, without waiting for cross-examination.

However, the High Court's interpretation raised questions about the discretion of the Trial Court and the necessity of witness cross-examination prior to deciding applications under Section 319 CrPC.

The crux of the legal argument rested on whether the application under Section 319 CrPC should be decided before cross-examination. The earlier ruling from the Constitution Bench emphasized that the court could act on the Examination-in-Chief as evidence. Yet, it did not mandate that the application must be resolved prior to witness cross-examination. The Trial Court retains discretion to determine the order of proceedings based on the evidence available.

Upon reviewing the circumstances, the appellate court concluded that the Trial Court acted appropriately by ensuring the presence of witnesses before making decisions regarding additional accused. The repeated absence of the prosecution witnesses indicated a lack of commitment to the trial process, raising concerns about the credibility of the case presented.

The appellate court restored the Trial Court’s acquittal, emphasizing that the absence of admissible evidence justified the decision under Section 232 CrPC, which allows for acquittal when evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

This case highlights critical aspects of criminal trial procedures, particularly concerning the rights of the accused and the importance of witness participation. It reinforces the principle that while courts may act on the basis of the Examination-in-Chief, the Trial Court retains the discretion to wait for cross-examination to ensure a fair trial process. The judgment serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in managing criminal trials and the necessity of adhering to procedural standards to safeguard justice for all parties involved.