![[Section 319 CrPC] CDRs Not Admissible At Summoning Stage Being Electronic Evidence In Alibi Plea: Allahabad High Court](https://www.verdictum.in/h-upload/2023/08/29/1536665-shiv-shanker-prasad-allahabad-hc.webp "[Section 319 CrPC] CDRs Not Admissible At Summoning Stage Being Electronic Evidence In Alibi Plea: Allahabad High Court")
[Section 319 CrPC] CDRs Not Admissible At Summoning Stage Being Electronic Evidence In Alibi Plea: Allahabad High Court
|The Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal revision which challenged the judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge in Meerut holding that the trial court was justified in not relying on inadmissible evidence collected during the investigation to consider the alibi plea under Section 319 Cr.P.C. T
The order arose from a case filed under Sections 302, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The revisionists argued that the trial court's order was flawed, as it didn't adequately consider the alibi evidence and material collected during the investigation.
A Bench of Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed, “The plea of alibi of the revisionists on the basis of Call Detail Reports of the revisionists can also not be considered at the stage of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the same is an electronic evidence which as per Section 3 of the Evidence Act would needed to be certified by an Expert under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, which is required to be certified after the prosecution evidence i.e. examination-in-chief and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is over.”
The incident in question involved a shooting that resulted in the death a person (deceased). The informant filed an FIR against individuals including the revisionists. The FIR claimed that the revisionists overtook and stopped the informant's car, then threatened and shot the deceased.
Senior Advocate Vinay Saran appeared for the Revisionist, Advocate Ankit Saran appeared for the opposite party no. 2 and Advocate R.N. Singh (AGA) appeared for the State.
The Court reviewed submissions from both sides and examined the records of a criminal revision case, specifically focusing on the impugned order passed by the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The order summoned the revisionists as accused at the request of the complainant (opposite party no.2).
The Court stated that the main argument of the revisionists' counsel was that the trial court did not consider their alibi plea based on oral and collected evidence by the Investigating Officer (IO). The Court said that the other arguments about the legality of the case can only be addressed under extraordinary jurisdiction, not during the current revision.
Citing a case Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 the Court explained that Section 397 Cr.P.C. lets the court assess the legality of lower court orders, while Section 482 Cr.P.C. offers wide powers to prevent abuse of court processes.
The Court cited the Amit Kapoor case again to clarify that the revision court must consider whether the trial court's decision was grossly erroneous, non-compliant with the law, based on no evidence, or an arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion.
The Court cited another case Hardeep Singh v. state of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 to support the view that the alibi plea needs to be proved after prosecution's case is established.
The Court moved on to analyze the legality of the impugned order in light of the alibi plea and the evidence collected by the IO. The Court referred to the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to ensure justice and maintain social order.
“It is well settled that statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence. In view of proviso to subsection (1) of Section 162 Cr.P.C., the statement can be used only with limited purpose of contradicting the maker of the statement thereof in the manner laid down in the said proviso. Therefore, the trial judge was perfectly justified in not placing reliance on wholly inadmissible evidence of alibi collected during investigation.”
The Court stated that the burden of proving the alibi plea rests on the revisionists as per Section 103 of the Evidence Act. It was clarified that the plea of alibi should be established during the trial by leading evidence and not by relying on investigation material. The Court also emphasized that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to consider the alibi plea at the stage of taking cognizance or framing charges. The conflicting view in the Brijendra Singh & Others v.. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 was discussed, but the Court emphasized that the interpretation of "evidence" in Section 319 Cr.P.C. as provided by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh's case takes precedence.
The Court found that the trial court had not committed any illegality or irregularity in not considering the plea of the alibi of the revisionists while passing the order impugned allowing the application of opposite party no.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoning the revisionists as accused. The Court concluded that the revision lacked merit and upheld the trial court's decision.
Cause Title: Krishnapal & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2023:AHC:170412
Click here to read/download Order