RAJENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

RAJENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

High Court erred by relying on inadmissible statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order; burden of proving alibi rests with the accused and can only be discharged at trial; Sessions Court order summoning respondent No. 2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was justified based on informant’s evidence even though respondent was not chargesheeted.

Parties
Appellant: Rajendra Singh; Respondent No. 2: Kapil Dev Singh; Respondent No. 1: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Granting Relief Under Section 482 Cr.p.c.
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Sessions Court's order for summoning respondent No. 2 restored.
Legal Topics
Section 319 Cr.p.c., Alibi, Burden of Proof, Summoning Additional Accused
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Section 319 Cr.p.c. Alibi Burden of Proof Summoning Additional Accused

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajendra Singh

Appellant

Kapil Dev Singh

Respondent No. 2

State of U.P.

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Granting Relief Under Section 482 Cr.p.c.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court erred by quashing Sessions Judge's order summoning respondent No. 2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Admissibility of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for plea of alibi
  3. 3 Burden and standard of proof for alibi

Ratio Decidendi

High Court erred by relying on inadmissible statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order; burden of proving alibi rests with the accused and can only be discharged at trial; Sessions Court order summoning respondent No. 2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was justified based on informant’s evidence even though respondent was not chargesheeted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Sessions Court's order for summoning respondent No. 2 restored.

Orders

  • High Court directed to hear criminal revision against co-accused's acquittal expeditiously.
  • Restoration of Sessions Judge’s order summoning Kapil Dev Singh for trial.