Top News Headlines 2nd Feb 2022: Burden of Proof To Establish Alibi Is Heavy

Burden of Proof To Establish Alibi Is Heavy: SC

• In the case of Pappu Tiwary vs State of Jharkhand, the Hon’ble SC has reiterated that the burden to prove the plea of alibi is on the accused and it is a heavy burden. Plea of alibi is provided in section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act where it is provided that facts which are otherwise irrelevant, become relevant when they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact.
• In the instant case, Pappu Tiwari, Sanjay Ram, Ajay Pal, Pintu Tiwari and Law Tiwari were convicted by the trial court under section 302 of IPC. This decision was confirmed by the HC.
• On the aspect of juvenility, an inquiry was conducted by the CJM according to which it was seen that the accused Pintu Tiwari was a minor at the time of the occurrence and had remained in jail for a period of three years already, his further detention could not be ordered in view of section 15 and 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
• Three of the convicts filed an appeal against the order of the HC.
• In appeal, Law Tiwari pleaded the defence of alibi and stated that the date of occurrence was 26-01-2000 and he had his leg broken on 24-01-2022. He pleaded that since his leg was broken on the day of the crime he could not have been present at the scene of the crime and hence was falsely implicated in the case.
• The Apex Court relied upon the case of Vijay Pal vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2015)4 SCC where it was held that when the Trial Court as well as the HC has disbelieved the plea of alibi then it is not for the SC to question the same. For the plea of alibi to stand, the accused would have to prove his case with absolute certainty and should be of a quality that the Court could entertain a reasonable doubt. It was also held in this case that “the burden on the accused is heavy and he is required to establish his plea of alibi with certitude”.
• The Court also relied upon the decision of the SC in Jitender Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC where it was held that the plea of alibi has to be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused from the scene of the crime.
• It was on the basis of these two decisions that the SC found no merit in the plea of alibi pleaded by Law Tiwari. It was held that the burden was on the accused and he had failed to discharge the same.
• The Court, while dismissing his plea, also said that it was not a case of an opportunity not being granted to him. He had led two witnesses in support of his case and two Court witnesses had also been summoned but he had been unable to satisfy the Court.

Summons Under 204 CrPC Cannot Be Issued When Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction If Inquiry Under 202 Is Not Held: Calcutta HC

• In the case of Divyajot Singh Jendu vs. Manikaran Analytics Limited has held that a summons to an accused person under section 204 CrPC cannot be issued unless an inquiry under section 202 CrPC is held.
• In the instant case, the present revision petition was filed by the petitioner under section 482 CrPC praying for the quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the lower Court. The petitioner was accused of an offence under section 420 and 406 of IPC. It was alleged that after resigning from service he had wrongfully appropriated some valuable documents including a laptop. It was also contended that he had cheated the company and caused them wrongful loss.
• It was argued by the petitioner in the instant case that the entire case was lodged to harass the petitioner. It was also contended that the petitioner resides in New Delhi and but before issuing of summons, the Magistrate did not follow the mandatory procedure under section 202(1) of CrPC where it is stated that if the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court then an inquiry has to be conducted under 202 CrPC.
• The Court observed that it is undisputed that the petitioner resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court and there is no document on record which shows that the petitioner had retained any valuable documents or a laptop.
• The Court also relied on an experience certificate which showed that the employer had found the petitioner to be a reliable and hardworking employee who was also a keen learner. This fact demolishes the allegation of cheating that was levelled on the petitioner.
• The Court referred to the judgement of Taylor vs Taylor (1876) where it was held that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down a method in which that power is to be exercised, then the said power is to be exercised in that manner only and in no other.
• The Court also relied on the landmark judgement of the SC in National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz wherein it was held that a magistrate receiving a complaint is duty bound to find out under section 202 CrPC if there is any substance in the allegation which calls for an investigation.
• Thus, the HC held that the lower Court had not complied with the mandatory provision of inquiry as laid down in section 202 CrPC.
• Accordingly, the revision was allowed and the order of summons was set aside. The case was remanded to the trial Court to issue fresh summons after complying with the provisions of section 202 CrPC.

Strong suspicion of prima facie case based on material on record sufficient to frame charges: Delhi High Court

• The Delhi High Court, in the case of Shakiluddin @ Babloo v the State has upheld the order passed by the Trial Court framing the charge of murder and consequently, dismissed the revision petition submitted before it by the petitioner/ revisionist.
• Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that when the material placed on record shows great suspicion against the accused, the Court is justified in framing the charges against such accused.
• Brief facts of the case are that the complainant and his were watching a wedding barat from the roof at the venue when the accused/ petitioner/ revisionist fired a bullet which hit the complainant’s son’s chest, eventually causing his death.
• Upon hearing the case, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) at Tees Hazari Courts, Delhi, framed a charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 for murder. Aggrieved by the order of the ASJ, the petitioner-revisionist filed a Revision Petition before the High Court arguing that sufficient/ unimpeachable material wasn’t placed on record to incriminate the accused for the charge of murder.
• The Court remarked that while framing charges, it has the power of shifting and weighing evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether or not a prima-facie case has been made against the accused. The Court further remarked that during the stage of framing charges, probative value of material placed on record cannot be delved into and the matter brought on record by the prosecution will have to be accepted as the truth; without the meticulous assessment of the probative value of the evidence or the defense.
• The petitioner/ revisionist’s contention that the trial judge may discharge the accused if one of the two possible views give rise to mere suspicion as against grave suspicion cannot be held tenable.
• The Court held that existence of a strong suspicion leading the Court to presume that the accused has committed an offence is sufficient ground to proceed with the proceeding against the accused and framing charges against him without applying the standard and test which it applies for determining the guilt of the accused.
• The Court concluded that only prima-facie view must be considered at the time of framing charges and if the materials placed on record suggest that an offence may have been commissioned, a case for framing charges exists. Held, the petition was dismissed.
• In arriving at the conclusion, the court took notice of the fact that a) the order of ASJ took into consideration all material placed on record and the complainant’s statement as a witness and b) no material/ evidence was placed on record by the petitioner.