The Bombay High Court allowed the present application and set aside the impugned order, which discarded the plea of alibi for taking into consideration at a later stage of a trial.
A single judge bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice S.G. Mehare held that it is legally incorrect to discard the plea of alibi supported by the genuine electronic evidence collected by a neutral investigating officer soon after registering a crime.
Brief Facts:
In this case, the allegations were made against the applicant, but his brother had submitted an application before the investigating officer that, at the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was at his workplace, which was captured in the CCTV footage. The investigating officer collected the CCTV footage and was satisfied that the applicant was at his workplace at the time of the alleged incident.
The investigating officer submitted a charge sheet against the other accused with a note to file a charge sheet against the applicant if any adverse material was found in the CCTV footage on receiving the Chemical analysis report. After that, the victim led the evidence before the Court, and she deposed against the applicant. Then, the Special Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 319, and Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code to summon the applicant to face the trial and the impugned order was passed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order recorded that the alleged claimed defence of alibi and whatever evidence brought on record might or do not affect the merits of the prosecution story. Hence, the summons was issued to the intended accused to face the trial by adding him to the charge sheet.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that even if it is accepted that the applicant was allegedly involved in the case, the evidence placed on record through CCTV footage in rebuttal is sufficient to hold that the trial against him would not culminate in conviction. The learned Counsel further submitted that when the report was received, the investigation officer was satisfied that the CCTV footage was genuine. Therefore, he correctly did not seek leave to file a supplementary charge sheet against the applicant under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Court did not consider the purport of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code and erroneously held that the defence of alibi is a matter of later stage.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the victim, who was a child, is consistent as regards the allegations against the applicant. They also argued that the applicant was not discharged under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, a supplementary charge sheet can be filed against him under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was further argued that for the sole reason that the applicant was not present on the spot of the incident, the evidence of the victim cannot be discarded.
Observations of the Court:
This Court observed that in light of the given facts, the argument of the learned Counsel for Respondent that the applicant was not discharged under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code would not stand for consideration because the investigation officer was satisfied with the absence of the accused on the spot of the incident. The evidence was already on record that the applicant was not present on the spot of the incident, which the learned Additional Sessions Judge completely ignored.
After relying on various judgments, the Court held that the law does not prescribe the stage when such a plea should be raised, and it is always wise to raise the plea of alibi as early as possible in the initial stage of the trial. In the case at hand, the applicant had proved his alibi with absolute certainty through electronic evidence, which is admissible evidence. Therefore, the Court held that discarding the plea of alibi supported by the genuine electronic evidence collected by a neutral investigating officer soon after registering a crime is not legally correct.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court allowed the present application and set aside the impugned order and the application moved by the Special Public Prosecutor in Special Case No.26 of 2021.
Case Title: Anand vs State of Maharashtra and another
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S.G. Mehare
Case no.: CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 296 OF 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. V.B. Deshmukh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. S.P. Sonpawale and Mr. Nisargraj Garje,
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
