Plea of Alibi Must Be Established During Trial, Not At Section 319 CrPC Summoning Stage: Rajasthan High Court
Court notes that threshold for summoning additional accused requires a degree of satisfaction higher than a prima facie case but not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a plea of alibi, the defense of being present elsewhere at the time of a crime, must be proved during trial, and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of summoning an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. Consequently, a plea of alibi, which is a matter of defense and formal proof, cannot be used to bypass the substantive testimony of eye-witnesses during the summoning process, it noted.
The Court clarified that while the legal standard for invoking Section 319 CrPC requires "more than a prima facie case" as established by the Supreme Court in the Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92, however, this does not equate to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “The evidence which was there before the Court was of an eye witness who has clearly stated before the Court that a crime has been committed, inter alia, by the revisionist. The Court need not cross-examine this witness. It can stop the trial at that stage itself if such application had been moved under Section 319…The threshold for summoning an additional accused is the existence of prima facie evidence indicating involvement in the offence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The plea of alibi is a matter of defence and the same is required to be established during trial, not at the stage of summoning…”.
Advocate Swadeep Singh Hora appeared for the petitioner and Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP appeared for the respondent.
As per the facts, in the matter in an alleged incident on November 10, 2016 at an indoor stadium in Ajmer, the husband of the complainant was allegedly murdered. Although the petitioners, were named in the FIR, the investigating agency (CID-CB) filed an application under Section 169 CrPC for their release. The agency relied on mobile tower locations and witness statements to conclude that the petitioners were not at the scene of the crime. Based on this investigation, they were not charge-sheeted, and the trial proceeded against other co-accused.
During the trial, the complainant (PW-4) testified under oath, specifically naming the petitioners and attributing specific roles to them in the commission of the murder. Following this testimony, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the petitioners as additional accused. The Trial Court allowed the application and took cognizance, summoning the petitioners through bailable warrants. The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court, contending that their established alibi and the prior police finding of innocence should have barred the summoning.
The Bench, thus, noted, “The entire purpose of criminal trial is to go to the truth of the matter. Once there is satisfaction of the Court that there is evidence before it that an accused has committed an offence, the court can proceed against such a person. At the stage of summoning an accused, there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court…The detail examination of the witness and other witnesses is a subject matter of the trial which has to begin afresh…”.
“…The defence, so put by the accused, with regard to his plea of alibi that they were not present at the place of occurrence would be taken into account by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage of trial. There is much more prima facie evidence available on the record for summoning them to face the trial. This Court finds no substance in the instant misc. petition…”, the Bench further noted.
The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Trial Court's summoning order, however, considering the petitioners were initially released under Section 169 CrPC and Petitioner No. 1 has since passed away, the Court directed that Petitioner No. 2 shall not be arrested if he appears before the Trial Court on or before April 24, 2026. He was ordered to submit personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court to ensure his presence during the trial.
Cause Title: Vikram Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:12525S]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Swadeep Singh Hora with T.C. Sharma, Advocates.
Respondents: Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP; Vinay Pal Yadav, Advocates.