Recently, the High Court of Gujarat revisited a conviction in a brutal murder case arising out of a long-standing personal and land dispute, raising key questions on the reliability of a sole eye-witness and the evidentiary value of a plea of alibi.
Brief Facts
The case arose from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the accused for murder and allied offences.The prosecution alleged that due to prior enmity, the accused attacked the deceased at a salon, where one fired a revolver and the other inflicted multiple blows with a sharp weapon, causing his death. The complainant, claiming to be an eye-witness, took the injured to the hospital where he was declared dead, leading to registration of FIR and subsequent conviction.
Contentions of the Accused
The Counsel for the accused argued that the conviction was based solely on a single interested eye-witness whose testimony was unreliable and inconsistent. It was further contended that no independent witness was examined and the identification parade was defective. A key submission was the plea of alibi, supported by evidence allegedly collected during investigation but not produced before the court, indicating suppression of material evidence. The accused therefore sought benefit of doubt.
Contentions of the State
The State contended that the eye-witness was reliable and his testimony was corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. It was argued that minor inconsistencies were immaterial and the motive stood established.The plea of alibi was termed unsubstantiated, and it was submitted that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Observation of the Court
The Court noted that the prosecution case rested substantially on the testimony of a sole eye-witness. While such testimony is not inherently unreliable, the Court emphasized that it must pass the test of strict scrutiny, especially when surrounding circumstances create doubt.
A pivotal aspect considered by the Court was the plea of alibi raised by one of the accused. The Court found it significant that the investigating officers themselves had admitted to collecting evidence, including statements of multiple witnesses and call detail records, indicating the presence of the accused at a different location, yet the same was not produced before the trial court. This suppression of material evidence, according to the Court, seriously undermined the prosecution case.
In this context, the Court observed that “The plea of alibi is a rule of evidence embodied under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act… taking such a plea does not dilute the burden of the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene of crime.”
The Court further emphasised that “When the prosecution itself collects material supporting the defence but withholds it, the same raises grave doubt about the fairness of the investigation.”
On evaluation of the additional evidence, the Court held that “The plea of alibi… stands sufficiently established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and the prosecution has failed to rebut the same.”
Consequently, the Court concluded that the presence of the accused at the scene of offence became highly doubtful, rendering his identification unsafe for sustaining conviction.
Decision of the Court
The Court held that the plea of alibi raised by one accused stood proved and his presence at the scene was doubtful; accordingly, he was granted benefit of doubt and acquitted. However, the conviction of the other accused was upheld on the basis of reliable eye-witness testimony corroborated by medical and scientific evidence. The appeals were thus partly allowed.
Case Title: Asim @ Munmun @ Asif Abdulkarimbhai Solanki vs State of Gujarat
Case No.: R/Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2019 (With Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2019)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Parth S. Tolia; Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Bhargav Pandya, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
