Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat [2002 SC] | Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT PDF Download

Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant, according to Section 11 of the Evidence Act of 1872, if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact, or if they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable by themselves or in conjunction with other facts.

Illustration demonstrates the alibi plea, which is derived from Section 11. (a). The word "alibi" comes from the Latin word "alibis," which meaning "elsewhere." It is a convenient term for an accused's defence claiming he was so far away from the scene of the crime that he could not possibly have participated in the crime. The Indian Penal Code or any other law does not recognise alibi as a special or general exception. The fact that facts that are contradictory with the fact in issue are significant is only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused's guilt by proving the commission of the crime, and this burden is not lightened by the fact that the accused has chosen the alibi defence. The accused's alibi plea should only be considered when the prosecution's burden of proof has been satisfactorily discharged. If the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of establishing the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it may not be essential to consider whether the accused has succeeded in demonstrating his or her alibi defence. However, once the prosecution has satisfied its duty, it is the responsibility of the accused who has entered an alibi plea to prove it with certainty in order to rule out the possibility of his presence at the place and time in question. The court is required to weigh in scales the evidence presented by the prosecution in demonstrating the accused's guilt and the evidence presented by the accused in proving his alibi defence.

If the accused's evidence is of such high quality and standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt about his attendance at the scene of the crime, the court will assess the prosecution's evidence to see if it leaves any room for the defence of alibi. The accused's burden is undeniably onerous. This stems from Section 103 of the Evidence Act, which states that the person who asks the court to believe in the existence of a fact bears the burden of evidence. When weighing the prosecution and defence cases against each other, if the balance tips in favour of the accused, the prosecution will fail, and the accused will be entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt that will emerge in the trial.

Returning to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the nature of the accusations levelled against the accused-appellant, as well as the overwhelming defence evidence adduced by the accused-appellant in support of his alibi plea, we believe that a reasonable doubt has been created in the prosecution case as to the accused-involvement appellant's in the incident. We have already stated that the High Court has found in favour of the accused-appellant, stating that his presence in Gandhinagar up to 11 a.m. on the day of the incident cannot be questioned. As a result, it's exceedingly unlikely that the accused-appellant could have returned to Village Singapur by the time the incident occurred.

For the reasons stated above, we believe that the accused-appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and that his appeal should be granted.

Despite the fact that we believe Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai, the accused-appellant before us, is entitled to an acquittal, we are aware that the High Court has found five accused persons guilty and condemned them under Section 149 IPC. With Jayantibhai, the accused-appellant before us, acquitted, the number of perpetrators in the incident is reduced to less than five, and the accusation brought under Section 149 IPC is dismissed. We may have looked into the legality and propriety of the non-appealing accused people' convictions as well, as part of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. In the facts and circumstances of this instance, however, we are hesitant to do so. Even if the charge brought under Section 149 IPC fails, the non-appealing accused parties could still be found guilty under Section 149 IPC.