Dismissed¶79

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Doctor v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2025CRLR/1326/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

plea of alibi; burden of proof; strict proof; absolute certainty; discharge application Section 227 CrPC; criminal revision Section 397 CrPC read with Section 438 BNSS 2023; framing of charge stage; FIR No.0362/2018 Police Station Jagatpur Raebareli; Sections 307 147 148 323 504 506 IPC; attendance register BTC training Meerut; Principal's certificate; Binay Kumar Singh; Rajendra Singh; Shaikh Sattar; Dudh Nath Pandey; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; revision rejected 2025.

What did the court decide?

It is settled law that the plea of alibi is a plea of defence. ¶38

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Doctor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether interference by this Court is required in the Trial Court's order dated 20.09.2025 rejecting the revisionist's discharge application, on the ground of plea of alibi. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

In view of the settled principle on the plea of alibi, the ground of plea of alibi taken by the revisionist for entertaining the revision and causing interference in the pending criminal proceedings has no force; accordingly the revision is rejected.

¶78

Ratio / Principle

It is settled law that the plea of alibi is a plea of defence.

¶38

Key takeaways

On a synthesis of the Apex Court decisions: the burden is on the prosecution to prove the accused's presence and participation; the plea of alibi needs consideration only after the prosecution discharges that burden satisfactorily; the accused adopting the plea must prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence, the burden being heavy and strict proof being required.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Saurabh Lavania, J.) under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 438 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 20.09.2025 of the Session Judge, Raebareli rejecting the applicant's discharge application under Section 227 CrPC in Session Trial No.1056 of 2025 arising out of FIR No.0362/2018, Police Station Jagatpur, District Raebareli, under Sections 307, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Ground urged: plea of alibi - revisionist claimed to have been at Meerut for B.T.C. training, relying on an attendance register and a certificate issued by the Principal of the School. Held: the plea of alibi is a plea of defence; the burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present and participated in the crime, and the plea of alibi falls for consideration only after the prosecution discharges that burden satisfactorily; once that is done, the accused must prove the alibi with absolute certainty, by positive evidence led at trial, so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence, the burden being heavy and strict proof being required. On this footing the alibi plea furnished no ground for interference with the rejection of discharge at the threshold. Reliance placed on Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1997) 1 SCC 283; Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. (2007) 7 SCC 378; Shaikh Sattar v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 8 SCC 430; Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 166; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple (1984) 1 SCC 446. Revision rejected.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1326 of 2025

¶3

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Doctor

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. And Another	Home	Deptt. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	:	Rakesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

This Criminal Revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed impeaching the order dated 20.09.2025, passed by the Session Judge, Raebareli (in short "Trial Court") in Session Trial No.1056 of 2025 (State Vs. Vineet Pratap Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.362/2018, under Sections 307, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Jagatpur, District - Reabareli.

¶11

By the impugned order, the application filed by the revisionist seeking discharge for the offence under Sections 307, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. has been rejected by the Trial Court. The relevant portion of the order under challenge reads as under :-

¶12

" जहाँ तक प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त द्वारा िलये गये उपरोक्त बचाओं का प्रश्न है, प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्राथर्ना पत्र अंतगर्त धारा 227 दण्ड प्रिक्रया संिहता के साथ अन्य कोई अिभलेख या साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया गया है और मात्र िववेचक द्वारा एकत्र साक्ष्य से ही धारा 307 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता के अपराध हेतु पूणर् न होना अिभकिथत करते हुए धारा 307 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता के अपराध हेतु अवमुक्त िकये जाने हेतु याचना की है।

¶13

इस सम्बन्ध में यहाँ यह उल्लेखनीय है िक प्रस्तुत प्रकरण की प्रथम सूचना िरपोटर् वादी रणधीर िसह द्वारा प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त अजय प्रताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर के साथ 7 अन्य व्यिक्तयों के िवरूद्ध भी दजर् करायी गयी थी, जो मुकदमा अपराध संख्या 362/2018 अंतगर्त धारा 307, 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता के अपराधों हेतु मुकदमा दजर् िकया गया और िववेचक द्वारा िववेचना उपरान्त धारा 307, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता के अपराध के िवचारण हेतु प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त अजय प्रताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर के साथ अन्य 7 अिभयुक्तों के िवरूद्ध भी िवचारण हेतु प्रेिषत िकया गया है, िजस पर सम्बिन्धत मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा प्रसंज्ञान लेकर उक्त को िवचारण हेतु सत्र सुपुदर् िकये जाने पर प्रस्तुत सत्र वाद पंजीकृत िकया गया है।

¶14

CRLR No. 1326 of 2025

¶15

¶16

प्रथम सूचना िरपोटर् में वादी द्वारा स्पष्टतः प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त व अन्य नािमत अिभयुक्तगण द्वारा िदनाँक 06.12.2018 को राित्र 8.30 बजे पुरानी रंिजश को लेकर उसकी हत्या करने की नीयत से अवैध असलहों के साथ घर में घुसकर गालीगलौज िकये जाने व मारपीट िकया जाना अिभकिथत िकया है और उक्त के आधार पर उपरोक्त धारा हेतु अपराध पंजीकृत िकया गया है। इस सम्बन्ध में प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त की ओर से यह बचाव लेने का प्रयास िकया गया है िक वादी द्वारा धारा 161 दण्ड प्रिक्रया संिहता के बयान में मात्र नाजायज असलहा जान से मारने की नीयत से वादी के सीने पर लगा िदया जाना ही बताया गया है। अतः धारा 307 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता के अपराध हेतु जान से मारने की नीयत के साथ अन्य कोई कृत्य िकये जाने की पुिष्ट नहीं होती है। अतः स्वीकृत रूप से वादी को आग्नेयास्त्र के फायर की कोई चोट न आना स्वीकार है। वादी द्वारा व िववेचक द्वारा अन्य साक्षीगण के बयानों से इस तथ्य की पुिष्ट होती है िक प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त अजय प्रताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर व अन्य 7 नािमत व्यिक्तयों द्वारा असलहों के साथ वादी के घर में उक्त दशार्ये गये समय च िदनांक पर घुसकर गालीगलौज िकया जाना व मारपीट िकया जाने के साथ साथ वादी के सीने पर जान से मारने की नीयत से असलहा लगा िदया जाना भी अिभकिथत िकया है। ऐसे में असलहा सीने पर लगा िदया जाना, जान से मारने की नीयत के साथ अितिरक्त कृत्य की श्रेणी में आता है। इस प्रकार िववेचक द्वारा एकत्र साक्ष्य के आधार पर प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त अजय प्रताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर के साथ अन्य नािमत अिभयुक्तगण िवनीत प्रताप िसह, आशीष िसह उफर् आिदत्य िसह, आदशर् प्रताप िसह उफर् िटकू, अनूप कुमार िसह उफर् सुभाष िसह, बालेन्द्र िसह उफर् छोटू, अजय प्रताप िसह व हिरजीत प्रताप िसह उफर् अंिकत िसह पर धारा 307, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता के अपराध के आरोप िवरिचत िकये जाने के पयार्प्त साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध हैं। िनष्कषर्तः प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त अजय प्रताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर के द्वारा धारा 227 दण्ड प्रिक्रया संिहता के अंतगर्त योिजत प्राथर्ना पत्र 18 ख िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है।

¶17

आदेश

¶18

अिभयुक्त अजय प्रताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर द्वारा योिजत प्राथर्ना पत्र 18 ख अंतगर्त धारा 227 दण्ड प्रिक्रया संिहता िनरस्त िकया जाता है।

¶19

समस्त अिभयुक्तगण को आदेिशत िकया जाता है िक वह िनयत ितिथ पर आरोप व अिग्रम कायर्वाही हेतु िदनाँक 26.09.2025 को व्यिक्तगत रूप से उपिस्थत होना सुिनिश्चत करें।"

¶20

For coming to the conclusion as to whether the interference in the order dated 20.09.2025 is required by this court or not, this Court considered the following facts :-

¶21

(i) A written report was submitted at Police Station - Jagatpur, District - Reabareli on 06.12.2018 by one Randhir Singh and based upon the said report an F.I.R. was lodged as F.I.R. No.0362/2018, at about 21.06 hours under Sections 307, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.

¶22

(ii) The name of the revisionist finds place in the said F.I.R. along with other accused persons.

¶23

(iii) The total named persons in the F.I.R. including the revisionist namely Ajay Pratap Singh @ Doctor are 08 persons and there are 04 unknown persons.

¶24

(iv) According to the F.I.R., the accused persons who were armed with country made pistols forcibly entered into the house of the informant and assaulted the informant.

¶25

CRLR No. 1326 of 2025

¶26

¶27

(v) The injured was examined on 07.12.2018 by Doctor Satyapal Singh who found following injuries :-

¶28

"Injury:-

¶29

1. C/o Pain over head.

¶30

2. C/o Pain over chest e tenderness.

¶31

3. C/o pain over left thigh with tenderness.

¶32

Opinion:-Injury is of simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object."

¶33

(vi) During investigation, the injured Randhir Singh narrated the story as narrated in the F.I.R., which has not been placed on record.

¶34

(vii) The statement of Prem Narain Singh S/o Ram Lakhan Singh was recorded by the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") is on record as Annexure No. 3.

¶35

(viii) It would be apt to indicate that the statement of injured/informant Randhir Singh was recorded by the I.O. who indicated the name of the applicant/revisionist and other persons.

¶36

(ix) Further, according to the injured/informant the country made pistol was put on his chest.

¶37

(x) A conjoint reading of the statements of the injured witnesses Randhir Singh, Prem Narain Singh and Gorakh Singh @ Kamal Singh, who did not indicate the name of the revisionist, would indicate that the informant survived on account of the fact that other persons reached on the spot/place of occurrence.

¶38

The ground of discharge taken by the revisionist is plea of 'alibi'.

¶39

According to the revisionist at the time of incident, he was at Meerut in connection with the B.T.C. training. In this regard reliance has been placed to Attendence Registere, Annexure No.5 to the paper book and a certificate issued by the Principal of the School, Annexure No.6 to the paper book.

¶40

In the aforesaid background of the case, the present revision has been filed taking the ground of plea of alibi.

¶41

In so far as the plea of 'alibi' is concerned, it is a settled law that it is a plea of defence. In Binay Kumar Singh v.State of Bihar [(1997) 1 SCC

¶42

CRLR No. 1326 of 2025

¶43

¶44

283], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:

¶45

"23. The Latin word alibi means "elsewhere" and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person;

¶46

(i) the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime.

¶47

(ii) The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi.

¶48

(iii) The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily.

¶49

(iv) But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence.

¶50

(v) When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened.

¶51

(vi) But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 166 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 379]; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple [(1984) 1 SCC 446 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 109 : AIR 1984 SC 63]".

¶52

9. In Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 7 SCC 378 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: -

¶53

"8. That apart, the plea taken by the respondent Kapil Dev Singh in his petition under Section 482 CrPC was that of alibi. Section 103 of the Evidence Act says that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is proved by any law that the proof of that fact lie on any particular person. The second illustration to

¶54

CRLR No. 1326 of 2025

¶55

¶56

Section 103 reads as under:

¶57

"B wishes the Court to believe that at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it." This provision makes it obvious that the burden of establishing the plea of alibi set up by Respondent 2 in the petition filed by him under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court lay squarely upon him. There is hardly any doubt regarding this legal proposition. ( See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1956 SC 460 : 1956 Cri LJ 827], Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [(1972) 4 SCC 140 : AIR 1972 SC 109] and State of Haryana v. Sher Singh [(1981) 2 SCC 300 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 421 : AIR 1981 SC 1021].) This could be done by leading evidence in the trial and not by filing some affidavits before the High Court. In such a case the prosecution would have got an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and demonstrate that their testimony was not correct. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in fact no affidavits were filed in the High Court but what was filed were copies of two or three affidavits which were given by some persons before the Superintendent of Police, Allahabad. Thus, there was absolutely no legal evidence in support of the plea of alibi of Kapil Dev Singh, which the High Court chose to rely upon and accept for the purpose of quashing the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge."

¶58

13. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC being wholly inadmissible in evidence could not at all be taken into consideration. The High Court relied upon wholly inadmissible evidence to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. That apart, no finding on a plea of alibi can be recorded by the High Court for the first time in a petition under Section 482 CrPC. As mentioned above, the burden to prove the plea of alibi lay upon the accused which he could do by leading evidence in the trial and not by filing some affidavits or statements purported to have been recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The whole procedure adopted by the High Court is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained."

¶59

10. In Shaikh Sattar v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 8 SCC 430], the Hon'ble Apex court has observed as under:-

¶60

"35. Undoubtedly, the burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the appellant. The appellant herein has miserably failed to bring on record any facts or circumstances which would make the plea of his absence even probable, let alone, being proved beyond reasonable doubt. The plea of alibi had to be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the appellant in the rented premises at the relevant time. When a plea of alibi is raised by an accused it is for the

¶61

CRLR No. 1326 of 2025

¶62

¶63

accused to establish the said plea by positive evidence which has not been led in the present case. We may also notice here at this stage the proposition of law laid down in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 8 SCC 18 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 186] as follows : (SCC p. 27, para 20)

¶64

"20. … This plea of alibi stands disbelieved by both the courts and since the plea of alibi is a question of fact and since both the courts concurrently found that fact against the appellant, the accused, this Court in our view, cannot on an appeal by special leave go behind the abovenoted concurrent finding of fact."

¶65

13. It is the prosecution to prove its case by adducing evidence. The petitioner is at liberty to take the plea of alibi as his defence and to establish the same with positive evidence. Before prosecution adduce evidence to establish the incident, and to prove participation of the accused, there is no scope for entertaining a defence plea of alibi."

¶66

From the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above, what appears is as under:-

¶67

(a) The prosecution has to prove its case including the role of the accused in that incident.

¶68

(b) Only when prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden by establishing its case including participation of the accused in the crime/incident, the plea of 'Alibi' put up by the accused needs to be considered.

¶69

(c) The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime.

¶70

(d) The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of 'Alibi'.

¶71

(e) The plea of 'Alibi' of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily.

¶72

(f) It is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence.

¶73

(g) When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened.

¶74

CRLR No. 1326 of 2025

¶75

¶76

(h) If the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy.

¶77

(i) Strict proof is required for establishing the plea of 'Alibi'. [vide: Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 166 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 379; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple (1984) 1 SCC 446 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 109 : AIR 1984 SC 63]" .

¶78

In view of principle settled on the plea of 'alibi', the ground, i.e. plea of 'alibi' taken by the revisionist for entertaining the instant revision and causing interference in pending criminal proceedings has no force.

¶79

Accordingly, the present revision is hereby rejected.

¶80

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶81

November 17, 2025 ML/-

¶82

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Doctor v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Doctor v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Saalim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Rani Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 6 Others

Rajmani @ Rajmani Ram ( Ex Serviceman Indian Army) Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) U.P. Lko. and 8 Others

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Doctor vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohit Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 4 Others

Ram Prakash Gupta Vs C.B.I. , a.C.B., Lucknow