SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 369

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Vikram Sharma, S/o. Late Shri Munni Lal Sharma  - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, through PP. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3521 of 2019
Decided On : 25-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. T.C. Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav

The plea of alibi is a matter of defence to be established during trial and cannot be considered by the court at the stage of summoning an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the standard is the presence of prima facie evidence of involvement.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 319 - Power of Court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty - Summoning of additional accused - Principles governing invocation of power - Purpose is to ensure real culprit is tried - Threshold is prima facie existence of evidence indicating involvement - Not required to be tested on anvil of cross-examination - Plea of alibi at this stage is premature - (Paras 19, 20, 21, 22)

(B) Evidence - Plea of alibi - Nature of - Being a defence, burden to establish it rests on accused - Cannot be considered or determined at stage of taking cognizance or summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Investigative reports on alibi are not binding on court - (Paras 17, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the trial court which invoked the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance and summon him as an additional accused. The petitioner contended that an earlier investigation report had accepted his plea of alibi and excluded him from the charge-sheet. However, based on the deposition of a witness recorded during the trial, the court below summoned the petitioner despite the prior investigative finding regarding his absence from the scene of the crime.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the trial court's power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an independent judicial function aimed at preventing the miscarriage of justice. It was observed that at the stage of summoning an additional accused, the court is not required to engage in an in-depth appreciation of defence evidence, including the plea of alibi. The investigating agency's previous conclusion regarding the accused's presence is not binding on the court if fresh evidence emerges during the trial.

Issues: 1. Whether the plea of alibi can be adjudicated at the stage of exercising summoning powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 2. Whether the trial court is obligated to honor the conclusion report furnished by the investigating agency in favour of an accused when fresh incriminating evidence is led in court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plea of alibi is a matter of substantive defence that must be established during the full course of trial. Invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. does not require determination of guilt but rather the assessment of whether, based on evidence before the court, an individual appears to have participated in an offence. The court’s role at the summoning stage is limited to ensuring that a sufficient prima facie case of involvement exists, disregarding the defence's alibi evidence which is premature.

Result: Petition dismissed; bail conditions directed for the remaining petitioner.

Table of Content
1. overview of case history and procedural grounds for the petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner argues for exclusion citing alibi and investigation findings under section 169 cr.p.c. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. respondent contends court's duty to summon real culprits under section 319 cr.p.c. regardless of police reports. (Para 10 , 11)
4. plea of alibi cannot be determined at the summoning stage; defensive evidence must be proved during trial. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. scope of section 319 cr.p.c. requires prima facie satisfaction of complicity to summon accused. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. final order upholding summons with specific directions for trial appearance and bail protection. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -

INDEX

(1)Prelude…………………………………………………………...2

(2)The challenge…………..………………………….…………..2

(3) Arguments by the petitioner..…………………………….2

(4) Arguments by the learned P.P. and complainant.….5

(5)Analysis and discussions…………..…..…………………..6

(6) Conclusion and directions………...………………..…….14

Prelude:-

1. The instant misc. petition is listed before this Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15.01.2026), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in various matters, interim orders have been passed in criminal revision petitions and petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as a result of which trial relating to serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, dowry death, etc., could not proceed and remained stalled/held up due to the passage of considerable time.

2. Directions have been issued to this Court and other High Courts to take up such like matters which are pending since long, on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates.

The Challenge:-

3. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 15.01.2019, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 07/2018 (CIS No.27/2017), by which the application submitted by the complainant-respondent under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence under Section 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149, 302/149, 307/149 & 120B of the IPC.

Arguments by the petitioner:-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the instant misc. petition, the petitioner No. 1 Vikram Sharma has passed away, hence, instant misc. petition stands abated qua petitioner No. 1.

5. Counsel further submits that the alleged incident occurred on 10.11.2016 between 9-10 p.m. at an indoor stadium, where the Police arrived immediately after occurrence of the offence. The impugned FIR was registered on the next date by the wife of the deceased, wherein, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons have been implicated as accused.

6. Counsel further submits that after conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against the co- accused persons and the same was kept pending against the petitioners under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and later on, the petitioners were also arrested.

7. Counsel further submits that thereafter, investigation was handed over to the CID(CB) and after thorough investigation of the matter, from all four corners, by the CID(CB), it was found that the petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence rather the petitioner No. 1 was 5 kms away from the place of occurrence and the petitioner No. 2 was in Pushkar which is 15 kms away from the place of occurrence. Counsel submits that evidence was collected with regard to the plea of alibi of the petitioners and considering such evidence, an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the CID(CB) in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top