Alibi Evidence and Material Contradictions Regarding FIR Registration Vitiate Prosecution Case in Acquittal Appeal

On July 16, 1997, at approximately 4:00 p.m., the complainant (Rupaji Dolaji Bodat) and his wife allegedly witnessed 18 accused persons—armed with a gun, dhariya, axes, and stones—attack the house of Galji Kala.

The prosecution alleged the accused committed dacoity, looting cash, ornaments, and a television, and injured Maniben Galji Bodat while killing a goat.

FIR I-C.R. No. 95/1999 was registered at Bhiloda Police Station.

The Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Himmatnagar) acquitted all accused on September 30, 1998, citing material contradictions in evidence.

The State appealed this acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the presence and participation of the accused at the scene of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, given the pleas of alibi raised by key accused.

2. Whether the material contradictions regarding the recording of the FIR and the failure to recover looted property vitiated the prosecution's case.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of acquittal where two reasonable conclusions are possible.

The court applied the standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal liability under Sections 395 (Dacoity), 397, 429, 427, 323, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(c) of the Arms Act, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

It adhered to the principles governing appeals against acquittal established in Chandrappa Ors. v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the "double presumption of innocence" for an acquitted person and the rule that an Appellate Court should not disturb a trial court’s finding if it is a reasonable conclusion, even if a second view is possible.

While the complainant (P.W.1) and Head Constable (P.W.13) claimed the FIR was lodged on the day of the incident, the record showed registration at 01:15 a.m. the following day, with P.W.13's duty hours ending at midnight, creating doubt on the document's authenticity.

The "plea of alibi" for Accused No. 1 (Subhash) was supported by P.W.5, a government clerk, confirming his presence at the RTO office, and for Accused No. 2 (Surji) by the school attendance register.

Despite 18 armed attackers, only one victim sustained a minor injury potentially caused by a fall.

All independent panch witnesses turned hostile, and no looted articles (cash, jewelry, or TV) were ever recovered.

The Court held these lapses rendered the Trial Court's verdict of acquittal a reasonable and non-perverse conclusion.

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal and confirmed the Trial Court’s judgment dated September 30, 1998, finding no manifest illegality or perversity to warrant interference; the bail bonds were discharged.