S.319 CrPC Summoning Order Can't Be Quashed Based On Alibi Evidence Of Additional Accused : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that to summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; a person may be summoned if there is prima facie evidence indicating their involvement in the offence.

“Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of what stronger material could be demanded at the summoning stage short of a confession. The threshold is not proof beyond reasonable doubt; it is the appearance of involvement which is apparent from evidence adduced in the proceeding.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan was hearing the case where the complainant was aggrieved by the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision to interdict the trial court's decision to summon Respondent No.2 (“proposed accused”) as an additional accused in the pending abetment to suicide case.

The Respondent No.2 took the defence of plea of alibi; however, based on other compelling evidence requiring the authenticity of the defence of alibi to be proved in the trial, the trial court summoned the Respondent No.2 as an additional accused.

The trial court's decision was interfered with by the High Court quashing the summoning order, holding that the Trial Court failed to consider the documentary alibi evidence and that the material was insufficient for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Nath observed that for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., a prima facie evidence is sufficient, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since there was sufficient prima facie evidence requiring Respondent No.2's presence in the trial, the Court justified the trial court's decision to summon the proposed accused.

Defence of Alibi Must Be Proved at Trial, Not at Summoning Stage

The Court held that the High Court was mistaken in relying on the proposed accused's plea of alibi, noting that such a plea is a matter of defence that must be established during trial, not considered at the stage of summoning.

“An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's order summoning the Respondent No.2 as an additional accused.

Case Title: HARJINDER SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 543

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pallavi Singh, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Chritarth Palli , AOR