Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case

Plea of Alibi Rejected: Gujrat High Court Upholds Trial Court's Decision to Add Accused Based on Eyewitness Testimony and CCTV Footage

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the trial court's order that joined Sunilbhai Shantilal Parmar as accused no. 4 in a case involving charges of murder and other serious offenses. The appeal, filed under Section 14A(2) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, contested the application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial court.

The case arose from an FIR lodged by Kalpanaben Parmar following a brutal attack on her husband and father-in-law, resulting in the former's death. The FIR named three individuals and an unnamed person as accused. During the investigation, multiple eyewitnesses, including Kalavatiben Jitubhai Vankar, identified Sunilbhai Parmar as a participant in the attack. Despite this, he was initially not charged but listed as a witness, based on his alibi claim corroborated by statements from his employer and a rickshaw driver.

Application of Section 319 Cr.P.C: The High Court reiterated the Supreme Court guidelines, emphasizing that adding an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C should be exercised sparingly and only when the evidence is strong and reliable. "The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case... but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction," the Court noted.

Plea of Alibi: The Court found the appellant's alibi unsupported by corroborative evidence. Referencing Kamal Prasad & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it was held that the plea of alibi requires a high threshold of proof, which Sunilbhai Parmar failed to meet. "It is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the spot of the crime," the judgment emphasized.

Eyewitness Testimony and CCTV Footage: The Court upheld the trial court's reliance on eyewitness accounts and CCTV footage that placed Sunilbhai Parmar at the crime scene. The evidence provided by Kalavatiben Jitubhai Vankar and other witnesses was found to be compelling and credible.

Investigating Officer's Satisfaction: Citing Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy, the Court held that the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer should not be determinative in the face of strong eyewitness testimony. "The trial court can take such a step to add such person as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the materials available in the charge-sheet," the Court stated.

Decision:The High Court concluded that the trial court correctly exercised its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add Sunilbhai Parmar as accused no. 4, based on strong and reliable evidence. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's order.

Date of Decision:  9th May 2024

Sunilbhai Shantilal Parmar vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Similar News