### Establishing Plea of Alibi Through Suppressed Investigative Material Entitles Accused to Benefit of Doubt and Acquittal

The case involves the murder of Kamleshbhai Bodiya on 04/03/2013 at a salon in Botad.

The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 2 (Jasminbhai Kothari) shot the deceased with a revolver, while Accused No. 1 (Asim Solanki) assaulted him with a farsi (axe-like weapon).

The Trial Court convicted both under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC.

Accused No. 1 raised a plea of alibi from the outset, claiming he was in Anand (200km away) at the time of the crime.

Investigative officers admitted in cross-examination that they had recorded statements of 13 witnesses and collected CDR data supporting this alibi but suppressed it from the charge-sheet.

Additional evidence regarding the alibi was recorded following an order under Section 391 Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the plea of alibi raised by Accused No. 1 was established by a preponderance of probabilities so as to exclude his presence at the scene of the crime.

2. Whether the ocular testimony of the sole eye-witness (PW-28) was sufficiently corroborated by medical and scientific evidence to sustain the conviction of Accused No. 2.

3. Whether the prosecution, public prosecutor, and Trial Court fulfilled their duties in ensuring a fair trial by producing/considering all material evidence, including evidence favoring the accused.

The court primarily applied Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the plea of alibi, noting it is a rule of evidence requiring strict scrutiny but evaluated on a preponderance of probabilities once the prosecution meets its initial burden.

The court applied Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding murder and common intention.

The court relied on Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat regarding the fundamental right to a fair investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court relied on Zahira Habibulla H. H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (Best Bakery Case) to emphasize the court's role as a participant in searching for the truth rather than a mute spectator.

The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus was applied as a rule of caution to separate truth from falsehood in witness testimony.

The Court found that the prosecution's case against Accused No. 1 was fatally undermined by the suppressed evidence of his presence in Anand at the time of the murder.

Although the complainant (PW-28) identified him, the Court noted that the identification was unreliable because the name was provided by a non-examined witness and the alibi was supported by CDR data and 13 independent witnesses—material the IO admitted to having but failing to include in the charge-sheet.

The case against Accused No. 2 was found robust; the ocular testimony of PW-28 regarding the firing was consistently corroborated by the Post-Mortem report (firearm entry/exit wounds) and FSL Ballistic reports matching the bullet in the deceased to the seized revolver.

The Court severely criticized the IO, the Public Prosecutor, and the Trial Judge for remaining "mute spectators" to the suppression of exculpatory evidence, failing the "triangulation of interests" required for a fair trial.

The Court dismissed the appeal of Accused No. 2 (Jasminbhai Kothari), confirming his conviction and life sentence under Section 302/34 IPC and the Arms Act, finding the ocular and scientific evidence against him conclusive.

The Court acquitted both accused of the robbery charge under Section 397 IPC due to lack of evidence regarding the looted articles.