ALIBI
The defence of alibi of the condemned prisoner was not established even then the responsibility of the prosecution does not di- minish in establishing its case that it was the accused who was responsible for commission of offence. The State Vs Azizur Rahman alias Habib, 20BLD(HCD)467. Ref: 43DLR(AD)92; 43 DLR243, 2BLC (AD) 126, 45DL287; 1986BLD(AD)174- Cited.
Alibi
The
plea of alibi and murder of wife
The
plea of alibi having been disbelieved, a great burden lies on the deceased
husband to explain as to how his wife died in his room where they were sleeping
in the same bed. Existence of multiple injuries on the person of the victim
makes this burden heavier.
In
the instant case the defence plea of alibi having been discarded and the door
of the room being kept open and in the absence of any acceptable explanation as
to how the wife died in the room of the husband, the only irresistible and
natural conclusion will be that it is the husband alone, in the circum- stances
of the case, who is guilty of commit- ting murder of his wife. The chain of
circum- stances coupled with the medical evidence on record having been
considered by the learned Judges of the High Court Division, we find that the
circumstantial evidences admit of no other hypothesis than the guilt of the
peti- tioner. Gourango Kumar Shaha Vs The State, 17BLD(AD)120
Alibi-wife
killing case Absence of plea of alibi
In
the absence of any plea of alibi the evidence on record is found to be
sufficient to hold that the appellant was at home in the fateful night with his
deceased wife. Since the defence has failed to succeed in creating a reasonable
belief by proving any circumstances that she could take her life by committing
suicide the husband cannot absolve himself of the criminal liability for
causing death to his deceased wife. The prosecution has been able to prove by
evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the husband was with his deceased wife in
the night of occurrence and the appellant caused the death of his wife by
strangulation and as such the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant.
Abdus Salam Vs The State, 19BLD (HCD) 98
Alibi
Plea
of alibi in a wife killing case
In
a wife killing case it is very difficult to bring witnesses against the accused
person. The evidence of PW4 has got to be taken in the light of this situation.
The evidence of PW4 that appellant Shiplu was in the field has been contradicted
by the evidence of PW 5, another hostile witness, who saw appellant Shiplu and
appellant Khaleda coming out of the house soon after the occurrence. In these
circumstances, we do not accept the plea of alibi that appellant Shiplu was
absent from the house at the time of the occurrence. Shiplu and another Vs The
State, 17BLD (HCD)243
Plea
of alibi
The
plea of the accused was that he was not at home during the night of the
occurrence as he had been to Faridpur for purchasing clothes and stayed there
on the fateful night. The plea of alibi falls to the ground as the de- fence
failed to prove the said facts within the special knowledge of the
accused-Evidecne Act Section 108
Gourang
Kumar Saha Vs. The State, 17BLD(HCD)259
Alibi
Mr. Shajahan's emphasis on this aspect of defence case was quite fervent. The reason for Mr. Shajahan's tooth and nail effort is understandable. If it stood proved that the appellant remained away from Pirojpur until July 71, as the alibi witnesses claimed, he can not be guilty of any of the charges, as all the alleged offences took place in May '71.
Although the standard of proof for the prosecution is "beyond reasonable doubt", pleas, taken by the defence, including the plea of alibi, is generally to be proved with civil standard i.e. with preponderance of probability. To substantiate his claimed absence from Pirojpur and transient stay in Jessore upto mid July '71, the appellant (as accused) examined some five witnesses namely D.Ws. 4, 6, 8, 12 and 14. He also relied on some documents in this regard. (Paras-800 & 801); .....Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee =VS= Government of Bangladesh, [2 LM (AD) 76]
Plea of alibi- Mr. Khondker Mahbub Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant drew our attention to the issues of some newspapers dated 08.11.1971 11.11.1971, 23.11.1971, 8.12.1971 and 11.12.1971 and submitted that the appellant was in Dhaka and communication between Chittagong and Dhaka was in fact collapsed from the month of November 1971 to 16 December, 1971. Learned Counsel failed to show any evidence that the communication was totally disrupted at the relevant time and that all the ways of movement from Dhaka to Chittagong were disconnected. His submission is unacceptable in view of the documentary evidence published in "The Dainik Azadi" on 04.12.1971. Contents of which were: "আজ পূর্ব পাকিস্তানের ইসলাম ছাত্রসংঘের সভাপতির চট্টগ্রামে আগমন " বার্তা পরিবেশক, পাকিস্তান ইসলামী ছাত্র সংঘের পূর্ব 44 পাকিস্তানের শাখার সভাপতি জনাব আলী আহসান মোহাম্মদ মুজাহীদের ৩ দিনের সফরে আজ ঢাকা থেকে আসিয়া পৌঁছাবেন। এখানে অবস্থানকালে তিনি দলীয় কর্মীদের এবং রাজনৈতিক নেতৃবৃন্দদের সহিত দেশের বর্তমান পরিস্থিতি সম্পর্কে আলোচনা করবেন এবং সুধী সমাবেশে বক্তৃতা করিবেন বলিয়া এক প্রেস রিলিজে বলা হইয়াছে"।
From the aforesaid news item, the submission of Mr. Khandaker Mahbub Hossain is devoid of substance. It is quite natural that since the President of EP ICS went to Chittagong on 25.11.1971 after taking decision appellant, who on was 24.11.1971, the in Charge of Chittagong Division, ICS and former leader of Chittagong town unit, ICS and local commander of Al-Badar Bahini would go and stay in Chittagong between 19th November, 1971 and 15 December, 1971. So the alibi, plea taken by the appellant does not carry any force. (Paras-197 & 198); ...Mir Quasem Ali VS The Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Dhaka, [2 LM (AD) 364]
Alibi
Alibi-plea
of alibi without calling evidence in support of it is no plea at all. State Vs.
Monzoor Ahmed, (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 444.
Alibi, plea of--If not substantiated, whether tells upon the defence case. It is to be remembered that if the plea of alibi is not believed, it does not necessarily follow that the prisoner committed the murder. The prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused and failure on the part of the defence to substantiate any plea taken by it does not necessarily prove the guilt of the accused. Abdur Rashid Vs. State (1975) 27 DLR SC 1.
Expression of regret: An expression of regret after making ma every effort to justify the action complained of cannot be treated as an unqualified apology or even as an apology simpliciter. "An attempt", it has often been said "to justify the conduct and at the same time to express regret for the act is a contradiction of the terms." Where it is contended, as in the present cases that the publication could not possibly amount to contempt, the subsequent apology can hardly be regarded as genuine. Advocate General Vs. Shabir Ahmed (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 356.
Magistrate cannot discharge accused persons on the plea of alibi that they were at different places at the time of commission of offences alleged by the prosecution-Magistrate's "finding" in this regard is based on no evidence. Mere submission of some papers supporting alibi is either sufficient nor admissible as the stage of adducing defence evidence was not yet come. Magistrate's order of discharge was not sustain- able as it was based on gross misconception of law. Nannu Gazi vs Awlad Hossain 43 DLR (AD) 63.
Alibi- Magistrate cannot discharge accused persons on the plea of alibi that they were at different places at the time of commission of offences alleged by the prosecution-Magistrate's "finding" in this regard is based on no evidence. Mere submission of some papers supporting alibi is neither sufficient nor admissible as the stage of adducing defence evidence was not yet come. Magistrate's order of discharge was not sustain- able as it was based on gross misconception of law. Nannu Gazi vs Awlad Hossain 43 DLR (AD) 63.
Alibi–– Mr. Shajahan’s emphasis on this aspect of defence case was quite fervent. The reason for Mr. Shajahan’s tooth and nail effort is understandable. If it stood proved that the appellant remained away from Pirojpur until July 71, as the alibi witnesses claimed, he can not be guilty of any of the charges, as all the alleged offences took place in May ’71. Although the standard of proof for the prosecution is “beyond reasonable doubt”, pleas, taken by the defence, including the plea of alibi, is generally to be proved with civil standard i.e. with preponderance of probability. To substantiate his claimed absence from Pirojpur and transient stay in Jessore upto mid July ‘71, the appellant (as accused) examined some five witnesses namely D.Ws. 4, 6, 8, 12 and 14. He also relied on some documents in this regard. (Paras-800 & 801); .....Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee =VS= Government of Bangladesh, [2 LM (AD) 76]
Alibi––
Alibi–– Mr. Shajahan’s emphasis on this aspect of defence case was quite fervent. The reason for Mr. Shajahan’s tooth and nail effort is understandable. If it stood proved that the appellant remained away from Pirojpur until July 71, as the alibi witnesses claimed, he can not be guilty of any of the charges, as all the alleged offences took place in May ’71.
Although the standard of proof for the prosecution is “beyond reasonable doubt”, pleas, taken by the defence, including the plea of alibi, is generally to be proved with civil standard i.e. with preponderance of probability. To substantiate his claimed absence from Pirojpur and transient stay in Jessore upto mid July ‘71, the appellant (as accused) examined some five witnesses namely D.Ws. 4, 6, 8, 12 and 14. He also relied on some documents in this regard. (Paras-800 & 801); .....Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee =VS= Government of Bangladesh, [2 LM (AD) 76]
