In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior allowed a criminal revision filed by Narendra Sharma, setting aside the trial court’s order that had summoned him as an accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court emphasized the importance of electronic evidence and a proven alibi, highlighting procedural lapses in the trial court’s decision.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from an FIR registered at Mehgaon Police Station, alleging that Narendra Sharma and others attacked a group, resulting in two deaths. Initially, Sharma was named in the FIR, but during the investigation, the CID found electronic evidence, including CCTV footage and mobile location data, proving his presence at Shri Ramchandra Mission Heart Fullness Center in Gwalior—60 km away from the crime scene—at the time of the incident. Based on this, the investigating officer filed a closure report under Section 169 CrPC, exonerating Sharma.
However, during the trial, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon Sharma as an accused, relying on witness statements. The trial court allowed the application, prompting Sharma to approach the High Court.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Municipal Council to Provide Sewerage Connections to Rashmin
Key Arguments and Court’s Analysis
Sharma’s counsel argued that the trial court ignored the closure report and electronic evidence, which conclusively established his alibi. They contended that the application under Section 319 CrPC was politically motivated and lacked merit.
The State and complainant, however, relied on witness statements and legal precedents, including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), to argue that the trial court had the authority to summon Sharma if prima facie evidence existed.
The High Court scrutinized Section 319 CrPC, which allows a court to summon additional accused if evidence suggests their involvement. The court referred to the Constitution Bench’s guidelines in Hardeep Singh, which state that the evidence must be strong enough to convict the accused if unrebutted.
Read also:- Supreme Court Hears High Court Judge's Plea Against In-House Procedure for Removal
The High Court noted that the trial court failed to consider the CID’s closure report and electronic evidence, which definitively proved Sharma’s absence from the crime scene. The court cited Labhuji Amritji Thakor v. State of Gujarat (2018) and Juhur v. Kareem (2023), reiterating that Section 319 CrPC requires cogent evidence, not merely allegations.
"The plea of alibi cannot be equated with the plea of self-defence. It must be raised at the earliest stage and proved with absolute certainty,"
— Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Anand Shivaji Ghodake v. State of Maharashtra (2023)
The court also referenced Asad Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), where the Supreme Court emphasized that trial courts must record subjective satisfaction before summoning an accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Case Title: Narendra Sharma vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case No.: CRR-6219-2024
