This Court then went on to say,
“The Latin word alibi means “elsewhere” and that
word is used for convenience when an accused takes
recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence
took place he was so far away from the place of
occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he
would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law
that in a criminal case, in which the accused is
alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another
person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove
that the accused was present at the scene and has
participated in the crime. The burden would not be
lessened by the mere fact that the accused has
adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused
in such cases need be considered only when the
burden has been discharged by the prosecution
satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in
discharging the burden it is incumbent on the
accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with
absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of
his presence at the place of occurrence. When the
presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence
has
been
established
satisfactorily
by
the
prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the
court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence
to the effect that he was elsewhere when the
occurrence happened. But 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
scene when the occurrence took place, the accused
would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that
reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a
sound proposition to be laid down that, in such
circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather
heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is
required for establishing the plea of alibi.”
This view was reiterated in Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v.
State of Gujarat.REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1159 OF 2005
Jumni and Others
.....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
Madan B. Lokur, J.
Dated;March 12, 2014
The two questions for consideration and discussion relate
to the value of the testimony of alibi witnesses and the
severability of a dying declaration.
2.
In the present appeals, we are of the opinion that the
testimony of the alibi witnesses of two of the four appellants
deserves acceptance and the dying declaration so closely
concerns all four appellants that it is not possible to sever the
role of the sets of appellants, resulting in our giving the benefit
of doubt to the remaining two appellants.
The facts:
3.
Six relatives (by marriage) of deceased Asha Devi were
accused of having murdered her and thereby having committed
an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. The accused persons were Rati Ram (father-in-law, now
died), Jumni (mother-in-law and appellant in Criminal Appeal
No. 1159 of 2005), Sham Lal (brother-in-law and appellant in
Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2005), Balbir Prasad (brother-in-
law and appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1159 of 2005, who, we
were told has since died), Prem Nath (brother-in-law and
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2005) and Raj Bala
(wife of Prem Nath and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 603 of
2005).
4.
Asha Devi was married at the age of 16 to Jagdish who
was employed in the army. According to her father, Asha Devi
lived with Jagdish for about one year and thereafter she lived in
village Bhojpur in district Jagadhari, Haryana, in a one room
tenement along with her two children aged 5 years and 11⁄2
years.
Her in- laws were staying in an adjacent tenement.
There is no allegation or evidence of any matrimonial
disharmony between Jagdish and Asha Devi who had been
married for about nine years nor is there any allegation of any
demand or harassment for dowry from Asha Devi.
5.
The case of the prosecution is entirely dependent on the
dying declaration of Asha Devi. In her statement, Asha Devi
stated that at about 12.00 noon on 4 th April 1996 she was given
a severe beating by all her in-laws. Thereafter, at about 3.00
p.m. she wanted to lodge a complaint with the police but all her
in- laws prevented her from doing so. Rather, they suggested
that she should be set ablaze.
6.
On the morning of 5th April 1996, Asha Devi seems to have
had a quarrel and in a fit of anger she broke her bangles. Upon
this, Jumni said that she should be finished. Consequently, all
her in-laws tied her up and poured kerosene on her and set her
on fire. This was at about 7.30 a.m.
7.
At about 10.30 a.m. Asha Devi was taken to the Civil
Hospital at Jagadhari. Seeing her condition with 100% burns,
the doctor on duty, Dr. M.R. Passi (PW-1) immediately informed
the police who took urgent steps for having her statement
recorded. Ms. Sarita Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class (PW-9)
was deputed for this purpose. According to Ms. Sarita Gupta,
she recorded the statement of Asha Devi in the Civil Hospital
between 11.22 a.m. and 12.05 p.m. on 5 th April 1996.
The
statement/dying declaration reads as follows:-
“Stated that I was married at the age of 16 years. I
am 25 years old. I have two sons, one is 5 years old
while the second is 11⁄2 old. My husband is serving in
military. Sometimes he visits us after a week and
sometimes after 15 days. In my house, my father-in-
law Rati Ram, mother-in-law Jumni, Jeth Prem Chand,
Jethani Bala Rani, two Devars Sham Lal and Balbir
Parshad are staying. My father-in-law, mother-in-law,
Jeth Jethani and both the Devers had been harassing
me from the very beginning.
My mother-in-law,
father-in-law, Jeth Jethani and both the Devers had
been making plans to eliminate me. Last week my
mother-in-law, father-in-law, Jeth, Jethani and Devers
said, “let us get her bitten from a dog and in this way
she would be eliminated”. Yesterday, during noon
time, my mother-in-law, father-in-law, Devers, Jeth
and Jethani had given me severe beatings.
Thereafter yesterday at about 3.00 PM when I was
about to go to police station to lodge a report, all of
them prevented me and said, “if she is bent upon to
do so, she should be eliminated by setting her
ablaze”. After getting up today morning, I went to my
mother-in-law and in a fit of anger, I broke my
bangles (a sign of indignation against the married
status). My mother-in-law, said that fault lies with her
(Asha) and she should be finished. Mother-in-law,
father-in-law, Jeth, Jethani and both the devers after
conniving with one another tied me with my Chuni
(head gear) and poured kerosene oil upon me. The
kerosene oil also entered in my eyes. Mother-in-law,
father-in-law, Jeth Jethani and both the devers set me
on fire together. I made a lot of noise. The incident
occurred at 7.30 AM. My mother-in-law Jumni, father-
in-law Rati Ram, Jeth Prem Chand, Jethani Bala Rani
and both the Devars Sham Lal and Balbir Parshad are
responsible for setting me on fire. After my death,
both of my children be handed over to my parents.
Otherwise my in-laws would kill them also.”
8.
Soon after the statement was recorded Asha Devi’s father
Devi Dayal (PW-6) arrived in the Civil Hospital (although he
says that he reached the hospital at about 11.45 a.m. but after
the Magistrate left) and he made arrangements to take her to
Chandigarh but she died on the way.
9.
On these broad facts, investigations were carried out and
a charge sheet was filed against the six accused persons for
having murdered Asha Devi.
Proceedings in the Trial Court:
10. Before the Additional Sessions Judge, in Case No. 35 of
1996, the principal argument of the prosecution was that in
view of the dying declaration there was no doubt at all that the
accused persons were guilty of having murdered Asha Devi.
11. Prem Nath and Raj Bala produced alibi witnesses before
the Trial Judge to show that Prem Nath was an employee in the
HMT factory in Pinjore and that on 4 th April 1996 as well as on
5th April 1996 he was in Pinjore and there was no question of his
or his wife’s involvement in the incident. The accused also
produced
Chandan
Singh,
Sub-Inspector,
Food
Supply,
Yamunanagar as DW-7 to prove, on the basis of the ration card
issued to Jagdish and Rati Ram, that they lived in the same
neighbourhood but not together as stated by Asha Devi.
Similarly, Puran Chand a neighbour of Jagdish was produced as
DW-8 and his testimony was to the effect that he saw smoke
coming out of Jagdish’s house and he heard some children
making a noise.
Thereupon he went to Jagdish’s house and
found that the door of the tenement was bolted from inside.
He, along with one Gurbachan broke open the door and found
Asha Devi lying burnt in the tenement. They put out the fire
and called Rati Ram who was working in the nearby fields.
Thereafter, Rati Ram took Asha Devi to the Civil Hospital.
Puran Chand also stated that Prem Nath and Raj Bala were not
present at the spot.
12. One of the questions considered by the Trial Judge was
whether Asha Devi was in a fit condition to make a statement,
particularly since, according to Dr. M.R. Passi, she had 100%
superficial as well as deep burns. The Trial Judge noted that Dr.
Passi testified that Asha Devi was fit to make a dying
declaration and that he was present when Ms. Sarita Gupta was
recording her dying declaration. He stated that Asha Devi was
responding to the questions put to her by the Magistrate.
13. The Trial Judge also considered the statement of Ms. Sarita
Gupta who had confirmed from Dr. Passi regarding the fitness
of Asha Devi to make a statement.
Ms. Sarita Gupta stated
that only after Asha Devi was declared fit to make a statement
that her statement was recorded and read over to her.
According to Ms. Sarita Gupta, during the recording of her
statement, Asha Devi was conscious and responding to verbal
commands.
She also stated that Dr. Passi was present
throughout when Asha Devi’s dying declaration was being
recorded.
14. On these facts, the Trial Judge concluded that Asha Devi
was fit to make a dying declaration.
15. The next question addressed by the Trial Judge was
whether the dying declaration contained any falsehood. In this
regard, the Trial Judge came to the conclusion that there was
nothing to suggest that the dying declaration was incorrect in
any manner or that Asha Devi made allegations out of some
vengeance.
16. Finally, the Trial Judge examined the plea of alibi raised by
Prem Nath and Raj Bala and in this regard he concluded that
there was every possibility of both of them being present in
village Bhojpur both on 4th April 1996 when Asha Devi was
given a beating as well as in the early morning of 5 th April 1996
when Asha Devi was set on fire.
17. On the above conclusions, the Trial Judge held, in his
judgment and order dated 28th October 1998, that all the
accused were guilty of having murdered Asha Devi.
18. Feeling aggrieved, the accused persons filed Criminal
Appeal No. 524-DB of 1998 in the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana. By its judgment and order dated 25 th October 2004,
the High Court dismissed their appeal.
Proceedings in the High Court:
19. The High Court considered the evidence of Dr. Passi as
well as the evidence of Ms. Sarita Gupta and upheld the
conclusion of the Trial Judge that Asha Devi was in a fit state of
mind to make a statement before the Magistrate.
20. The High Court also upheld the conclusion that Asha Devi
was in a condition to speak coherently and was capable of
making a statement. Consequently, the High Court accepted
the validity of the dying declaration.
21. The High Court then considered the question whether it
could be held, despite the dying declaration, that Prem Nath
and Raj Bala were not involved in the incident concerning Asha
Devi. Relying upon a few decisions of this Court, the High Court
was of the view that there was no error in law in accepting a
part of the dying declaration and rejecting another part of the
dying declaration. The High Court then examined the evidence
of the alibi witnesses in an attempt to ‘bifurcate’ the dying
declaration. However, the High Court rejected their testimony
and concluded that there was every possibility of Prem Nath
and Raj Bala being present both on 4th April 1996 when Asha
Devi was subjected to a beating as well as on 5 th April 1996
when she was allegedly set on fire.
22. The High Court affirmed the conviction of the accused as
well as the sentence imposed upon them.
23. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the evidence of
Puran Chand (DW-8) who stated that Asha Devi’s tenement was
locked from inside and that the door had to be broken open by
him and Gurbachan who found her burning.
Plea of alibi
24.
On a consideration of the material before us, what strikes
us as a little odd is that insofar as Prem Chand and Raj Bala are
concerned, both the Trial Judge and the High Court have given
us the impression that they proceeded on the basis that these
two accused persons are required to prove their innocence. In
fact it is for the prosecution to prove their guilt and that seems
to have been lost in the consideration of the case.
25. It is no doubt true that when an alibi is set up, the burden
is on the accused to lend credence to the defence put up by
him or her. However the approach of the court should not be
such as to pick holes in the case of the accused person. The
defence evidence has to be tested like any other testimony,
always keeping in mind that a person is presumed innocent
until he or she is found guilty.
26. Explaining the essence of a plea of alibi, it was observed
in Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.1 that:
“The plea of alibi postulates the physical
impossibility of the presence of the accused at the
scene of offence by reason of his presence at
another place. The plea can therefore succeed only if
it is shown that the accused was so far away at the
relevant time that he could not be present at the
place where the crime was committed.”
This was more elaborately explained in Binay Kumar
Singh v. State of Bihar2 in the following words:
“We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an
exception (special or general) envisaged in the
Indian Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule of
evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence
Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in
issue are relevant.”
Illustration (a) given under Section 11 of the Evidence Act
is then partially reproduced in the decision, but it is fully
reproduced below:
(1981) 2 SCC 166
(1997) 1 SCC 283
Crl. Appeal No. 1159 of 2005
“The question is whether A committed a crime at
Calcutta on a certain date; the fact that on that date,
A was at Lahore is relevant.
The fact that, near the time when the crime was
committed, A was at a distance from the place where
it was committed, which would render it highly
improbable, though not impossible, that he
committed it, is relevant.”
This Court then went on to say,
“The Latin word alibi means “elsewhere” and that
word is used for convenience when an accused takes
recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence
took place he was so far away from the place of
occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he
would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law
that in a criminal case, in which the accused is
alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another
person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove
that the accused was present at the scene and has
participated in the crime. The burden would not be
lessened by the mere fact that the accused has
adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused
in such cases need be considered only when the
burden has been discharged by the prosecution
satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in
discharging the burden it is incumbent on the
accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with
absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of
his presence at the place of occurrence. When the
presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence
has
been
established
satisfactorily
by
the
prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the
court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence
to the effect that he was elsewhere when the
occurrence happened. But 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
scene when the occurrence took place, the accused
would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that
reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a
sound proposition to be laid down that, in such
circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather
heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is
required for establishing the plea of alibi.”
This view was reiterated in Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v.
State of Gujarat.3
27. On the standard of proof, it was held in Mohinder Singh
v. State4 that the standard of proof required in regard to a
plea of alibi must be the same as the standard applied to the
prosecution evidence and in both cases it should be a
reasonable standard. Dudh Nath Pandey goes a step further
and seeks to bury the ghost of disbelief that shadows alibi
witnesses, in the following words:
“Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment
with those of the prosecution. And, courts ought to
overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in
defence witnesses. Quite often, they tell lies but so
do the prosecution witnesses.”
28. The defence put up by Prem Nath and Raj Bala needs to
be examined in the light of the law laid down by this Court.
What is the defence put up by them?
Subhash Saini, Office
Assistant with HMT in Pinjore appeared as DW-1 and stated that
Prem Nath was on duty on 4th April, 1996 from 2.00 p.m. to
10.00 p.m. On the next day that is on 5 th April, 1996 he was on
half day leave and was on duty from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.
29. This witness also stated that the entry and exit of an
employee to and from the factory premises is recorded in a
(2002) 8 SCC 165
1950 SCR 821
punching machine and two employees of the factory supervise
the machine to avoid proxy punching. If there is any suspicion
about any employee, the identity card is demanded from him
or her. The Trial Court and the High Court had observed that it
is possible to ‘manipulate’ the punching machine. While this
may be so, there is nothing to suggest that despite the
presence of employees and other safeguards having been set
up by HMT, Prem Nath had manipulated the punching machine.
The view of both the courts was speculative in nature and
cannot form the basis for rejecting the alibi.
30. Jagan Nath Mishra (DW-2) is the tenant of Prem Nath and
he stated that he met Prem Nath at about 10.30 p.m. on the
night of 4th April 1996.
31. This witness further stated that he left his residence to
attend duty the next morning at about 7.45 a.m. (This has
wrongly been mentioned as 5.45 a.m. in the impugned
judgment and we have verified from the original record that it
is actually 7.45 a.m.) At that time he met Prem Nath and Raj
Bala. He also stated that when he returned at about 5.45 p.m.
he was given sweets by Raj Bala because they had purchased a
new scooter.
32. On 5th April 1996 Prem Nath had taken half day leave for
the purpose of purchasing a scooter. This was testified by Bhim
Sen Verma (DW-3). It was stated by K.N. Sharma (DW-5) that
Prem Nath was on duty on 4th April 1996 up to 10.00 p.m. and
on half day duty on 5th April 1996.
33. K.K. Kanwal from Hind Motors Ltd. in Chandigarh entered
the witness box as DW-6 and affirmed that at about 11.00 a.m.
on 5th April 1996 Prem Nath had purchased and taken delivery
of a scooter from his company. He further stated that prior to
taking delivery of a vehicle, it takes about an hour to complete
all procedural formalities in this regard.
34. The evidence of the alibi witnesses clearly brings out that
on 4th April 1996 Prem Nath was in his factory from 2.00 p.m.
onwards till 10.00 p.m. and later in the night he was seen by
his tenant at about 10.30 p.m. On the next day that is 5 th April
1996 Prem Nath and Raj Bala were seen by their tenant at 7.45
a.m. and about 11.00 a.m. Prem Nath purchased and took
delivery of a scooter from Hind Motors Ltd., Chandigarh before
going to the factory at about 6.00 p.m. On 5 th April 1996 his
wife Raj Bala distributed sweets on the purchase of a new
scooter.
The Trial Court and the High Court have
disbelieved the entire case put up by Prem Nath and Raj Bala
by holding that they could very well have been in village
Bhojpur at 12.00 noon on 4th April 1996 when Asha Devi was
given a beating and they could have travelled back to Pinjore to
enable Prem Nath to be in the factory at 2.00 p.m. Nothing is
said about how they could have stopped Asha Devi at 3.00 p.m.
from going to the police to lodge a complaint. The same night,
they could have left Pinjore to be in village Bhojpur early
morning on 5th April 1996 at about 7.30 a.m. when Asha Devi
was set on fire.
Thereafter, they could have come back to
Pinjore to enable Prem Nath to be in Hind Motors at about
10.00 a.m. to purchase a scooter at 11.00 a.m.
There is
nothing on record to indicate the distance between Pinjore and
village Bhojpur but we were orally told that it takes more than a
couple of hours to cover that distance. Prem Nath did not have
any means of personal conveyance which could have enabled
him to undertake these journeys.
36. Apart from the conclusions of the Trial Court and the High
Court appearing far-fetched, the testimony of Jagan Nath
Mishra (DW-2) the tenant of Prem Nath has not been correctly
appreciated because of a typing error in transcribing it from the
original record. As mentioned above, Jagan Nath Mishra had
seen Prem Nath and Raj Bala at 7.45 a.m. on 5 th April 1996 (and
not at 5.45 a.m. as wrongly transcribed in the impugned
judgment). Consequently, Prem Nath and Raj Bala could not
have been in village Bhojpur at 7.30 a.m. on 5 th April 1996.
This evidence has gone unchallenged.
37. It seems to us that although the High Court has given due
weightage to the dying declaration of Asha Devi but having
accepted it, it has tried to pick holes in the defence evidence to
justify the contents of the dying declaration. Given the law laid
down by this Court, this was not the correct manner of
approaching the evidence brought forth by Prem Nath and Raj
Bala. In our opinion, the alibi witnesses have made out a strong
case of demonstrating the improbability of Prem Nath and Raj
Bala being involved in the incident of beating up Asha Devi at
about 12.00 noon on 4th April 1996, of stopping her at about
3.00 p.m. from going to the police to lodge a complaint and
setting her on fire at about 7.30 a.m. on 5th April 1996.
Severability of a dying declaration:
38. The
next
question
is
whether
Asha
Devi’s
dying
declaration can be split up to segregate the case of Prem Nath
and Raj Bala from the case of the other accused persons.
39. In Godhu v. State of Rajasthan 5 this Court found itself
unable to subscribe to the view that if a part of the dying
declaration is found not to be correct, it must result in its
rejection in entirety. It was held,
“The rejection of a part of the dying declaration
would put the court on the guard and induce it to
apply a rule of caution. There may be cases wherein
the part of the dying declaration which is not found
to be correct is so indissolubly linked with the other
part of the dying declaration that it is not possible to
sever the two parts. In such an event the court would
well be justified in rejecting the whole of the dying
declaration. There may, however, be other cases
wherein the two parts of a dying declaration may be
severable and the correctness of one part does not
depend upon the correctness of the other part. In the
last mentioned cases the court would not normally
act upon a part of the dying declaration, the other
part of which has not been found to be true, unless
the part relied upon is corroborated in material
particulars by the other evidence on record. If such
other evidence shows that part of the dying
declaration relied upon is correct and trustworthy the
court can act upon that part of the dying declaration
despite the fact that another part of the dying
declaration has not been proved to be correct.”
40. Although at law there is no difficulty in segregating the
role of two sets of accused persons if the dying declaration is
severable, the present case indicates that the role of the
accused persons cannot be segregated. This is because Asha
Devi’s dying declaration mentions all the accused persons as
being involved in all the events that had taken place on 4 th April
1996 and 5th April 1996. There is no distinction made in the
(1975) 3 SCC 241
role of any of the accused persons and they have all been
clubbed together with regard to the harassment of Asha Devi;
making plans to eliminate her; Asha Devi being beaten up on
4th April 1996; all the accused persons preventing her from
lodging a complaint with the police; all the accused persons
tying up Asha Devi with her chunni and pouring kerosene oil on
her and then setting her on fire.
Asha Devi has referred to
each one of them as being involved in every incident on 4 th
April 1996 and 5th April 1996. If somewhat different roles were
assigned to at least some of the accused persons, segregation
or severance could have been possible. But with everybody
being roped in for every event, it is not possible in this case to
segregate or sever the actions of one from another.
41. Notwithstanding this, as we have seen, it is not possible to
accept the involvement of Prem Nath and Raj Bala in the
events that took place on the two fateful days. Nevertheless, it
is quite possible that the other four accused were involved in
beating up Asha Devi on 4th April 1996 and setting her on fire
on 5th April 1996.
But, what is of equal importance is that
neither the Trial Court nor the High Court adverted to the
crucial evidence of Puran Chand (DW-8) who stated that he saw
smoke coming out of Jagdish’s tenement and children were
making a noise. When he reached there, he saw flames and
smoke coming out from the ventilator of Jagdish’s tenement
and along with Gurbachan, he had to break down the door of
the tenement which was locked from inside and they found
Asha Devi on fire. If this statement of Puran Chand is correct,
and there does not seem any reason to doubt it since nothing
was put to him in this regard in cross examination, a case of
suicide by Asha Devi is a possibility. At this stage, it may be
noted that the investigating officer Gurdial Singh (PW-10) could
not say if the bolt of the tenement was broken or not.
42. On a reading of the dying declaration it is quite clear that
Asha Devi was very disturbed on the morning of 5 th April 1996
and that is why she broke her bangles in the presence of Jumni.
This may be because of the events of the previous day or her
being a victim of continuous harassment. This, coupled with a
lack of response from Jumni on the morning of 5 th April 1996
may have completely frustrated Asha Devi leading her to
commit suicide. Whatever be the cause of Asha Devi being
upset, the evidence of Puran Chand has not been challenged
and so it cannot be glossed over. In the face of this, it is not
possible to discount the theory suggested by learned counsel
that the case was possibly one of the suicide out of extreme
frustration and not of murder.
43. It is true that when a person is on his or her death bed,
there is no reason to state a falsehood but it is equally true that
it is not possible to delve into the mind of a person who is
facing death. In the present case the death of Asha Devi and
the circumstances in which she died are extremely unfortunate
but at the same time it does appear that for some inexplicable
reason she put the blame for her death on all her in-laws
without exception. Perhaps a more effective investigation or a
more effective cross-examination of the witnesses would have
brought out the truth but unfortunately on the record as it
stands, there is no option but to give the benefit of doubt to
Jumni (and Sham Lal) and to hold that they were not proved
guilty of the offence of having murdered Asha Devi.
44. Insofar as Prem Nath and Raj Bala are concerned there is
sufficient material to accept their alibi and they must be
acquitted of the charges made against them.
45. As mentioned above Rati Ram and Balbir Prasad are
already dead and nothing need be said about their involvement
in the incident. Were they alive, they too would have been
entitled to the benefit of doubt since the facts pertaining to
them were similar to those of Jumni and Sham Lal.
Conclusion:
46. The plea of alibi set up by Prem Nath and Raj Bala deserve
acceptance and are accepted. They are found not guilty of
having murdered Asha Devi. Jumni and Sham Lal are given the
benefit of doubt and the charge against them of having
murdered Asha Devi is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Both the appeals are accordingly allowed.
..........................................
J
(Ranjana Prakash
Desai)
..........................................J
(Madan B. Lokur)
New Delhi;
March 12, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment