Official Military Records Proving Accused Were On Duty Establish Alibi Beyond Doubt; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal In Murder Case

Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that official military records and the testimony of senior Army officers carry substantial weight in establishing a plea of alibi. A bench of Justice N.S. Shekhawat and Justice H.S. Grewal observed that when attendance registers, duty certificates, and bank withdrawal slips place an accused at a military station far from the crime scene, the prosecution's ocular version becomes highly suspect. The Court made these observations while dismissing the State's appeal against a 2002 judgment acquitting several individuals in a 1998 murder case.

The case arose from the murder of Mahender Singh on October 17, 1998, in village Ahulana, Haryana. The prosecution alleged that five accused, including three serving Army personnel, arrived in a car and on a motorcycle to shoot the deceased over long-standing panchayat election rivalry. Following an acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, in 2002, the State of Haryana and the complainant filed an appeal and revision petition respectively.

The primary question before the Court was whether the official military documentation produced by the defense was sufficient to establish a plea of alibi. The Court was also called upon to determine if the testimony of the sole eye-witness was reliable enough to overcome the documentary evidence of the accused persons' presence at their place of duty.

Official Military Documentation Establishes Alibi

The Court placed heavy reliance on the extensive evidence produced by the defense to prove that three of the accused were present at the Bengal Engineers Group (BEG) Centre in Roorkie at the time of the murder. The bench noted that the defense examined several high-ranking officers and produced attendance registers, morning report books, and officer identity card check registers.

These records, maintained in the ordinary course of military duty, clearly showed that Captain Anand had inspected the quarter guard at 9:00 AM on the day of the incident. Similarly, other accused personnel were attending clerical training or sports practice sessions. The Court found it nearly impossible for the accused to have been present at the crime scene in Haryana while simultaneously performing recorded duties in Roorkie.

Testimony Of Senior Army Officers Corroborates Presence - "Court Validates Credibility Of Military Personnel Testimony"

The bench emphasized the credibility of the defense witnesses, which included Subedars, Majors, and Commanding Officers. These witnesses testified to the presence of the accused at the military station and produced duty certificates signed by the Commanding Officer of the 1st Battalion. The Court found no reason to doubt the veracity of these high-ranking officials who had no personal stake in the criminal dispute.

The evidence further included an internal Military Court of Inquiry, which had independently established the presence of Captain Anand in the battalion throughout the day of the occurrence. The Court remarked that such a robust trail of official documentation and professional testimony created a "shadow of reasonable doubt" over the prosecution's claims.

Financial Records As Supporting Evidence For Alibi - "Bank Withdrawal Slips Serve As Independent Verification"

The Court highlighted a crucial piece of evidence regarding Captain Anand, who had operated his savings bank account at the State Bank of India, BEG Centre, Roorkie, on the very day of the murder. A bank official testified that the accused had withdrawn Rs. 2,000 using a withdrawal slip, which required the customer to appear in person at the bank between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM.

This timestamped financial transaction directly contradicted the prosecution’s claim that the accused was committing a murder in Haryana at approximately 11:15 AM. The Court observed that the necessity of physical presence for bank withdrawals provided an additional, objective layer of proof for the plea of alibi.

Unnatural Conduct Of The Primary Eye-Witness - "Inconsistencies In Eye-Witness Testimony Undermine Prosecution"

While examining the testimony of the complainant (PW-13), the Court found his conduct at the time of the shooting to be "unnatural." The bench noted that despite seeing his cousin being shot multiple times, the witness did not make a hue and cry, nor did he receive any blood stains on his clothes while attempting to help the victim.

The Court further observed that the witness did not shift the deceased to an ambulance and failed to intervene even after the first shot was fired. "The conduct of PW-13 Ramesh Kumar appears to be unnatural," the bench noted, agreeing with the trial court that such testimony does not inspire confidence when pitted against documented alibi evidence.

"The non-examination of a close relative of the deceased, who had been cited as an eye-witness, creates a strong doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case."

Failure To Prove Criminal Conspiracy - "Vague Allegations Of Conspiracy Lack Material Support"

The prosecution’s attempt to prove a criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC was also rejected. The Court scrutinized the testimony of PW-12, who claimed to have overheard the accused discussing the murder plot through an open window. The bench described this evidence as a "futile attempt" to link the family members of the Army personnel to the crime.

The Court noted that the witness could not provide basic details about the land deal that allegedly brought him to the house where the conspiracy was discussed. Citing State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan, the Court reiterated that the charge of conspiracy requires a "meeting of minds" and must be proved beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, which was absent in this case.

Scope Of Interference In Acquittal Orders

"Appellate Court Cannot Interfere If Trial Court View Is Plausible"

Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Tota Singh v. State of Punjab and Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court emphasized that it should not interfere with an acquittal merely because a different view is possible. The bench stated that the trial court's approach was neither perverse nor illegal.

The Court held that since the trial court had taken a "plausible view" based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence, the judgment of acquittal must be upheld. The bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the complicity of the respondents, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence regarding their presence at the Army station.

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal and the complainant's revision petition, confirming the acquittal of all respondents. The ruling underscores the high evidentiary value of official military records and independent institutional documentation in criminal trials. By prioritizing verified attendance and duty logs over inconsistent eye-witness accounts, the Court reinforced the principle that a plea of alibi, when supported by official state records, can effectively dismantle the prosecution's case.

Date of Decision: 29 May 2026