HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1326 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. 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. 3. 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 :- "जहाँ तक ्ऺाथर् अिभयु्व ्षारा िलये गये उपरो्व बचाओं का ्ऺश्न है, ्ऺाथर् अिभयु्व ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ अंतगर्त धारा 227 दण्ड ्ऺि्वया संिहता के साथ अन्य कोई अिभलेख या साष्य ्ऺस्तुत नहीं िकया गया है और मा्ऴ िववेचक ्षारा एक्ऴ साष्य से ही धारा 307 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता के अपराध हेतु पूणर् न होना अिभकिथत करते हुए धारा 307 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता के अपराध हेतु अवमु्व िकये जाने हेतु याचना की है। इस सम्बन्ध में यहाँ यह उल्लेखनीय है िक ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺकरण की ्ऺथम सूचना िरपोटर् वादी रणधीर िसह ्षारा ्ऺाथर् अिभयु्व अजय ्ऺताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर के साथ 7 अन्य ्िि्वयों के िवरू्ध 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 ्षारा िववेचना उपरान्त धारा 307, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता के अपराध के िवचारण हेतु ्ऺाथर् अिभयु्व अजय ्ऺताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर के साथ अन्य 7 अिभयु्वों के िवरू्ध भी िवचारण हेतु ्ऺेिषत िकया गया है, िजस पर सम्बिन्धत मिजस््िेट ्षारा ्ऺसं्ञान लेकर उ्व को िवचारण हेतु स्ऴ सुपुदर् िकये जाने पर ्ऺस्तुत स्ऴ वाद पंजीकृ त िकया गया है। Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajay Pratap Singh @ Doctor .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) ्ऺथम सूचना िरपोटर् में वादी ्षारा स्प्ितः ्ऺाथर् अिभयु्व व अन्य नािमत अिभयु्वगण ्षारा िदनाँक 06.12.2018 को राि्ऴ 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 उ्व के आधार पर उपरो्व धारा हेतु अपराध पंजीकृ त िकया गया है। इस सम्बन्ध में ्ऺाथर् अिभयु्व की ओर से यह बचाव लेने का ्ऺयास िकया गया है िक वादी ्षारा धारा 161 दण्ड ्ऺि्वया संिहता के बयान में मा्ऴ 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 कृ त्य िकये जाने की पुि्ि नहीं होती है। अतः स्वीकृ त रूप से वादी को आग्नेयास््ऴ के फायर की कोई चोट न आना स्वीकार है। वादी ्षारा व िववेचक ्षारा अन्य सा्षीगण के बयानों से इस तथ्य की पुि्ि होती है िक ्ऺाथर् अिभयु्व अजय ्ऺताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर व अन्य 7 नािमत ्िि्वयों ्षारा असलहों के साथ वादी के घर में उ्व 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 अितिर्व कृ त्य की ्शेणी में आता है। इस ्ऺकार िववेचक ्षारा एक्ऴ साष्य के आधार पर ्ऺाथर् अिभयु्व अजय ्ऺताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर के साथ अन्य नािमत अिभयु्वगण िवनीत ्ऺताप िसह, आशीष िसह उफर् आिदत्य िसह, आदशर् ्ऺताप िसह उफर् िटकू , अनूप कु मार िसह उफर् सुभाष िसह, बालेन््श िसह उफर् छोटू, अजय ्ऺताप िसह व हिरजीत ्ऺताप िसह उफर् अंिकत िसह पर धारा 307, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता के अपराध के आरोप िवरिचत िकये जाने के पयार्प्त साष्य प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध हैं। िनष्कषर्तः ्ऺाथर् अिभयु्व अजय ्ऺताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर के ्षारा धारा 227 दण्ड ्ऺि्वया संिहता के अंतगर्त योिजत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ 18 ख िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश अिभयु्व अजय ्ऺताप िसह उफर् डाक्टर ्षारा योिजत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ 18 ख अंतगर्त धारा 227 दण्ड ्ऺि्वया संिहता िनरस्त िकया जाता है। समस्त अिभयु्वगण को आदेिशत िकया जाता है िक वह िनयत ितिथ पर आरोप व अि्षम कायर्वाही हेतु िदनाँक 26.09.2025 को ्िि्वगत रूप से उपिस्थत होना सुिनि्ात करें।" 4. 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 :- (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. (ii) The name of the revisionist finds place in the said F.I.R. along with other accused persons. (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. (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. CRLR No. 1326 of 2025 2 (v) The injured was examined on 07.12.2018 by Doctor Satyapal Singh who found following injuries :- "Injury:- 1. C/o Pain over head. 2. C/o Pain over chest e tenderness. 3. C/o pain over left thigh with tenderness. Opinion:-Injury is of simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object." (vi) During investigation, the injured Randhir Singh narrated the story as narrated in the F.I.R., which has not been placed on record. (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. (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. (ix) Further, according to the injured/informant the country made pistol was put on his chest. (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. 5. The ground of discharge taken by the revisionist is plea of 'alibi'. 6. 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. 7. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present revision has been filed taking the ground of plea of alibi. 8. 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 CRLR No. 1326 of 2025 3 283], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "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; (i) the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. (ii) The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi. (iii) The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. (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. (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. (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]". 9. In Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 7 SCC 378 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: - "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 CRLR No. 1326 of 2025 4 Section 103 reads as under: "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." 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." 10. In Shaikh Sattar v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 8 SCC 430], the Hon'ble Apex court has observed as under:- "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 CRLR No. 1326 of 2025 5 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) "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." 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." 11. From the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above, what appears is as under:- (a) The prosecution has to prove its case including the role of the accused in that incident. (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. (c) The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. (d) The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of 'Alibi'. (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. (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. (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. CRLR No. 1326 of 2025 6 (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. (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]". 12. 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. 13. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby rejected. November 17, 2025 ML/- CRLR No. 1326 of 2025 7 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench