prove
(i) that they were not present at the time of occurrence and (ii)
that Phoola Ram committed suicide.
37. To prove his alibi accused ... prove that at the time of alleged occurrence he was present on
duty. The onus of proving alibi was on accused-Mahinder Singh
examined a
single witness to prove his alibi. The burden of proving alibi was on the
Appellant and he failed to discharge it. The evidence ... accept the submission of the Appellant that notwithstanding him
not having proved alibi, he should still be given the benefit of doubt
denied the case of the
prosecution. He has taken the plea of alibi. The appellant
was convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove.
Hence, the present ... appellant has
vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf
alibi. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden then it is incumbent on the accused taking the plea of alibi to prove ... prosecution in proving of the guilt of the accused and the evidence adduced by the accused in proving his defence of alibi. If the evidence
mentioned in those DDs.
36. To substantiate his plea of alibi, the appellant Pankaj had
examined DW5 Rajesh Umare, who had deposed that ... incumbent on the accused-who takes the plea of alibi, to
prove it with certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence
Jasbir Singh and DW9 Mohabbat Raj have tried to
prove the plea of alibi, taken by the accused Ranjit Singh
and Ranbir Singh, then ... Even otherwise also,
these witnesses have not been able to prove the plea of
alibi as DW8 has stated that Ranjit Singh had remained
agreement Ex.P.2 through attesting witnesses and
the claim of alibi not proved by the accused, the lower appellate Court has
erroneously held that ... which is mutually destructive coupled with the fact
his failure to prove alibi, to wit, his absence at Tuticorin on 14.07.2002
and presence at Imperial
their behalf or at their instance, the objective primarily being to prove
alibi.
44. The judgment in the case was rendered on 27.08.1996 holding
eighty
mentioned in those DDs.
36. To substantiate his plea of alibi, the appellant Pankaj had
examined DW5 Rajesh Umare, who had deposed that ... incumbent on the accused-who takes the plea of alibi, to
prove it with certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence
mentioned in those DDs.
36. To substantiate his plea of alibi, the appellant Pankaj had
examined DW5 Rajesh Umare, who had deposed that ... incumbent on the accused-who takes the plea of alibi, to
prove it with certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence
