Source: Jammu & Kashmir High Court   

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the plea of alibi is a matter of defence to be tested at trial, and cannot be a ground for quashing the charge sheet at the pre-trial stage. 

• The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held this in the matter of Abdul Qayoom Ganie and Ors. v. UT of J&K and others (2025). 

What was the Background of Abdul Qayoom Ganie and Ors. v. UT of J&K and others, (2025) Case? 

• The present case arose from FIR No. 52/2024 registered at Police Station Zainapora, Shopian for offences under Sections 142, 148, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• According to the allegations contained in the FIR, on 23.06.2024, the complainant (respondent No. 3) was undertaking repairs of his house when the incident occurred. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, along with co-accused persons, came to the location armed with deadly weapons including axes, knives, and iron rods. 
• The complainant further alleged that the accused person launched a premeditated and violent attack upon him and his associates. As a result of this attack, the complainant sustained injuries on his head and other parts of his body. Additionally, three other persons named Tanveer Ahmad, Manzoor Ahmad, and Hameed Imran also received injuries on different parts of their bodies during the incident. 
• Based on the written complaint filed by respondent No. 3, the police registered the FIR and initiated an investigation into the matter. After completion of the investigation, the investigating agency filed a charge sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian. 
• The petitioners challenged the charge sheet proceedings on the ground of alibi. They contended that they were not present at the scene of the alleged offence at the relevant time as they were discharging their official duties at their respective places of posting. 
• Specifically, petitioner No. 1 claimed he was working as a Selection Grade Constable in the Police and was posted at Ahstan Sharief Jinab Sahib Soura, where he was on duty on the date of the incident. Petitioner No. 2 claimed he was working as a Teacher at Higher Secondary School, Shopian and was discharging his duty as an Invigilator on the relevant date. Petitioner No. 3 claimed he was working as a Lecturer in Higher Secondary School, Keegam and was also on duty at the relevant time. 
• The petitioners argued that since they were not present at the spot during the incident, no offence was made out against them. They also alleged that the police had not investigated the matter properly and that respondent No. 3 had lodged the complaint with malicious intent to wreak vengeance upon them due to a civil dispute between the parties. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• On the Nature of Allegations: The Court observed that the contents of the FIR clearly disclose that the petitioners and co-accused launched an attack upon the complainant and his associates, resulting in injuries to the victims. The allegations specifically mention that the petitioners were carrying weapons like axes, knives, and iron rods at the time of the incident and used these weapons to inflict injuries upon the complainant and his associates. The Court noted that these allegations clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. 
• On Investigation and Charge Sheet: The Court observed that the Investigating Agency, after investigating the FIR, found substance in the allegations made against the petitioners, which resulted in the filing of the charge sheet. The Court noted that prima facie evidence existed to support the charges. 
• On the Plea of Alibi: The Court made a crucial observation that the plea of alibi put forward by the petitioners cannot form a ground for quashing the charge sheet in writ proceedings. The Court emphasized that the veracity of the defence raised by the petitioners is a matter that can be examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage during the trial proceedings. 
• On Scope of Judicial Review: The Court observed that it cannot exercise its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to conduct a mini-trial to ascertain the veracity of the defence put up by the petitioners. The Court clarified that such detailed examination of evidence and defence pleas is beyond the scope of quashing proceedings. 
• On Alternative Remedy: The Court observed that if the petitioners believe that their defence of alibi has not been properly investigated by the Investigating Agency, they have the liberty to approach the learned trial Magistrate before whom the charge sheet has been filed and seek further investigation of the case. The Court noted that the trial court is the appropriate forum to address such concerns regarding adequacy of investigation. 
• Final Observation: The Court concluded that it cannot go into all aspects of the matter in the present writ proceedings, as these are matters that fall within the domain of the trial court. The Court observed that the petition lacked merit and accordingly dismissed it, leaving all questions of fact and law to be determined by the trial court during the course of the trial proceedings. 

What is the Concept of Plea of Alibi? 

• Definition:  
  • A plea of alibi is a fundamental defense mechanism in criminal law where an accused person claims they were physically present at a different location at the time the alleged offense was committed, making it impossible for them to be the perpetrator of the crime. 
• Legal Framework: 
  • Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023: 
    • Section 9 governs the plea of alibi, which states that facts not otherwise relevant become relevant if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact. 
    • Section 106 addresses the burden of proof, placing the responsibility on the accused to prove their claim of being elsewhere. 
  • Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 
    • Section 11 provides the legal basis for alibi defense, making facts relevant if they are inconsistent with the facts in issue. 
• Essential Elements of Plea of Alibi: 
  • Commission of a cognizable offense that is punishable by law. 
  • Formal charges must be filed against the accused. 
  • Proof of absence from the crime scene at the relevant time. 
  • Evidence of presence at a different location making it impossible to commit the crime. 
  • Timely assertion of the defense in legal proceedings. 
• Burden of Proof: 
  • The burden of proving the plea of alibi lies entirely on the accused person. However, the standard required is not "beyond reasonable doubt" but should be strong enough to create reasonable doubt about the accused's presence at the crime scene.