Plea Of Alibi Not Conclusive At Summoning Stage; Can Only Be Tested On Basis Of Evidence Produced During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The well settled proposition of law is that an alibi is plea in the nature of an evidence and the burden to establish it rests on the accused. However, such plea cannot be treated to be a conclusive at the threshold and for that purpose, the prosecution as well as defence has to lead full evidence," Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that a plea of alibi raised by proposed additional accused persons cannot be treated as conclusive at the threshold to set aside a summoning order under Section 319 of the CrPC.

A bench of Justice Manisha Batra observed that the veracity of a version regarding the absence of an accused from the spot can only be tested on the basis of evidence produced during trial and not at the stage of summoning.

The case arose from an FIR registered in 2018 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, and 506 of the IPC involving an alleged assault on the complainant, Vijay Pal. While the petitioners were named in the FIR with specific overt acts, the police initially found them innocent and placed them in Column No. 2 of the challan report. Following the complainant's testimony during trial, the Magistrate allowed an application to summon the petitioners as additional accused, a decision subsequently upheld by the Revisional Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the plea of alibi, supported by departmental certificates indicating the petitioners were on duty elsewhere, was sufficient to quash a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC. The court also considered whether the testimony of the complainant reached the "strong and cogent" evidentiary threshold required to summon additional accused persons.

Court Explains Power Under Section 319 CrPC and Section 348 BNSS

Justice Manisha Batra noted that Section 319 of the CrPC, which is pari materia with Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, empowers the court to add any person as an accused if sufficient evidence indicates their involvement. The court emphasized that this power is intended to ensure that all persons involved in a crime are tried together, even if they were not initially chargesheeted or were previously discharged.

"Section 319 of Cr.P.C... empowers the Court to add any person, not being the accused before it, but against whom there appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence."

High Threshold Of Evidence Required For Summoning Additional Accused

Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (2014), the Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised only when "strong and cogent evidence" occurs. The bench noted that while only a prima facie case needs to be established, the test is one that is more than a prima facie case as established at the time of framing charges, but short of satisfaction that would lead to a conviction if unrebutted.

"The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as has been established at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction."

Veracity Of Alibi Plea Cannot Be Determined At Preliminary Stage

The petitioners, who are Army and Air Force personnel, argued that they were performing duties at their respective postings far from the crime scene. They produced certificates from the Ministry of Defence to support their plea of alibi. However, the Court observed that an alibi is a matter of evidence, the burden of which lies on the accused. Such a plea cannot be treated as conclusive at the threshold of the proceedings.

"In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the veracity as to the version of the petitioners No.1 and 2 as to their not being present at the spot, can be tested only on the basis of the evidence to be produced during trial and not at this stage."

Conflict Between Alibi Certificates and Electronic Evidence

The Court took note of an inquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, which suggested that the cellphone locations of the petitioners were at the place of occurrence on the date of the incident. The report further alleged that the petitioners had procured false certificates regarding their presence at their places of duty. The bench held that such conflicting claims regarding the plea of alibi can only be resolved through a full appreciation of evidence.

"As per this report, the cellphone numbers used by the petitioner No.1 and 2 were showing their locations at the place of occurrence as on the relevant date i.e. 25.03.2018. As per this report, the petitioners No.1 and 2 had got prepared false certificates."

Complainant’s Testimony Constitutes More Than Prima Facie Evidence

The bench examined the testimony of PW1 Vijay Pal and found that he categorically deposed in support of the version given in the FIR, attributing specific weapons and injuries to the petitioners. Referencing Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2018), the Court remarked that the prosecution cannot be forbidden from bringing evidence that could be proved as legally admissible during trial.

"The evidence led by this witness cannot be said to be leading to merely prima facie case. Rather, it can be considered to be more than prima facie evidence. The learned trial Court by considering the said evidence had passed the impugned order thereby summoning the petitioners."

The High Court concluded that there was no perversity, irregularity, or illegality in the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court. Since specific overt acts and roles were attributed to the petitioners by the eyewitness, the court found no reason to interfere with the summoning order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the truthfulness of the alibi remains a matter for the trial stage.

Date of Decision: 26 May 2026