Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. It is further submitted that the appellant Sunil had taken the plea of alibi that on the day of the incident, he along with his father had gone to Village Khatola, District Gurgaon, Haryana to purchase a buffalo. They reached there at about 5 p.m. and stayed in the said village for the whole night. It is further argued that DW4-Luv Kush Aggarwal was examined as defence witness to establish the alibi of accused Anil that on the day of incident, appellant Anil was present with DW4 from 6.00-6.30 p.m. at his house as they were watching a cricket match uptill 10.30-11.00 p.m. DW4 further deposed that on that day father of Anil asked DW4 to take care of Anil as he was going along with Sunil to purchase a buffalo. In between, Anil had gone to his home to sell milk at about 7-7.15 p.m. and came back after about 2-3 minutes. Similarly, DW7-Virender Singh was examined to establish that he purchased the milk from appellant Anil and he stated that on 19.12.1997 at about 7.00-7.15 p.m. He had gone to the house of Anil to purchase milk. At that time, Anil was not present at his house. His mother told him that he was sitting in the house of Babli in the adjacent house. He went to the house of Babli and called Anil. Anil came with him to his house, gave him milk and thereafter, he went back to the house of Babli to watch cricket match.

37. In support of the above contentions raised, judgments in the case of Jayanti Bhai Bhenkaarbhal v. State of Gujarat (2002) 8 SCC 165 and Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna and another v. State of Gujarat (2013) 15 SCC 263 have been relied upon, in which it was observed that once the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden, then it is incumbent on the accused-who takes the plea of alibi, to prove it with certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place and time of occurrence. If the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality, and of such a standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the place and time of occurrence, the Court would evaluate the prosecution evidence to see if the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution leaves any slot available to fit therein the defense of alibi. It was also observed that it is the sacrosanct duty of the appellate court to be satisfied that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt after proper reassessment, re-appreciation and re- scrutiny of the material on record.

65. So far the plea of alibi taken by accused Raja is concerned, it is argued that there was no DD entry by 8.15 p.m. Even there was no question of picking up of DW3, or accused Raja by the police, at 8.15 p.m. DW3 had not stated anything about sustaining injury by accused Raja. Thus, the plea taken is totally false. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Rajesh Kumar v. Dharamvir (1974) 4 SCC 493. It is further submitted that the plea of alibi taken by the other accused persons were false and the same have duly been rejected by the trial court. The prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused persons and there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment of conviction. In support of the contentions raised, reliance has been placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh and Another (2011) 4 SCC 786, Ramachandran and other v. State of Kerala (2011) 9 SCC 257, Yunis alias Kariya v. State of M.P. (2003) 1 SCC 425, Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others (2013) 15 SCC 298, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015 ) 11 SCC 69 and State of Gujarat v. Naginbhai Dhulabhai Patel and others (1983) 3 SCC 316.

79. The appellant Raj Kumar @ Raja to prove his plea of alibi, had examined DW3-Pramod Sharma who deposed that on 19.12.1997 at about 08.15 p.m., he came out of his house and met accused Raja in the street. In the meantime, police came there and asked them to come to police station. On the next day morning, DW3 and other persons were allowed to leave the police station, but accused Raja was detained. He knew about the murder of Keshav Ram, resident of the same street.

80. The plea of defence taken by the accused Raj Kumar @ Raja is that on the day of incident he himself visited the police station and got lodged a DD No.25A at about 08.20 p.m. against the deceased and his sons (PW1 & PW5) and then he was taken to hospital for medical examination. The said plea taken by the accused Raja falsifies the testimony of DW3-Pramod Sharma. DW3 had stated that on the day of incident at about 8.15 p.m., when he and accused Raja were present in the street, they were asked by the police to come to the police station. They reached the police station and on the next morning DW3 was allowed to leave, but accused Raja was detained by the police. If the statement of DW3 is believed to be correct, then the plea taken by the accused Raja is contradicted that he himself went to the police station to lodge the DD No.25A at about 8.20 p.m. Thus, there is no truth in the plea of alibi taken by the accused Raj Kumar @ Raja.