Supreme Court Clarifies: Absence of Complainant Will Not Always Lead to Acquittal of Accused Under Section 256 CrPC and Section 279 BNSS

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment clarifying the application of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its corresponding provision, Section 279 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This ruling addresses the circumstances under which the absence of a complainant may or may not lead to the acquittal of the accused, thereby providing crucial guidance for the conduct of criminal trials.

In the case under consideration, the complainant had initiated multiple complaints against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with dishonor of cheques. The complainant had already been examined as a witness, and his evidence was on record. Subsequently, the complainant failed to appear on certain dates fixed for the proceedings. The trial court dismissed the complaints and acquitted the accused solely on the ground of the complainant's absence. This decision was upheld by the High Court.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinized the provisions of Section 256 CrPC, which stipulates the procedure to be followed when a complainant is absent. The Court emphasized that the primary purpose of this section is to prevent undue delays and to discourage dilatory tactics by complainants. However, it does not mandate an automatic acquittal of the accused in every instance of the complainant's absence, especially when the complainant's evidence has already been recorded.

The Court observed that if the complainant has been examined and their evidence is on record, the mere absence of the complainant on subsequent dates does not justify the dismissal of the complaint and the acquittal of the accused. The magistrate has the discretion to proceed with the case, considering the evidence already available. This interpretation aims to ensure that justice is not thwarted by procedural lapses and that cases are decided on their merits.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted that the proviso to Section 256(1) CrPC allows the magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the complainant and to proceed with the case if the complainant's presence is not deemed necessary. This provision underscores the importance of judicial discretion and the need to balance the interests of justice with procedural requirements.

The Court also referred to its earlier judgments, reinforcing the principle that when the prosecution has closed its evidence, the case should be decided on its merits, rather than being dismissed due to the complainant's absence. This approach aligns with the broader objective of the criminal justice system to adjudicate cases based on substantive evidence, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not impede the delivery of justice.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling clarifies that the absence of a complainant, particularly after their evidence has been recorded, does not automatically warrant the acquittal of the accused under Section 256 CrPC or Section 279 BNSS. Magistrates are entrusted with the discretion to assess the necessity of the complainant's presence and to proceed with the case based on the evidence available. This judgment serves to prevent the miscarriage of justice due to procedural shortcomings and emphasizes the importance of deciding cases on their substantive merits.