Tower location no indicator of person’s innocence: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 8

The tower location of a mobile phone was no indicator of a person’s innocence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled, making it clear that the often taken alibi by an accused to establish his absence from the scene of offence was of little significance.

In reverse, the ruling makes it clear that a man cannot be condemned merely on the ground of his mobile being present in the vicinity of the crime site.

Alibi of little significance

Alibi by an accused to establish his absence from the scene of offence is of little significance. The possibility of mobile phone being in someone else’s possession at the specified time cannot be ruled out. High Court Bench

The ruling is significant as mobile tower location during the past few years has emerged as a potent tool in the hands of the defence to establish frame-up of an accused in criminal cases. But the judgment by the Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma says the possibility of mobile phone being in someone else’s possession at the relevant time could not be ruled out.

The Bench was hearing two appeals by rape case convicts. Accused of raping a 15-year-old, the two were sentenced by Jalandhar Additional Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appearing before the Bench, the counsel for one of the accused “strenuously” argued that his client was not present at the crime scene on the fateful day.

He added that the trial court did not, however, appreciate a nodal officer’s statement that mobile belonging to the accused showed his presence in another village. The counsel further submitted that the impugned judgments were purely based on surmises and conjectures.

The state counsel, on the other hand, submitted cogent evidence existed on record to show that the appellants had committed the offence. The prosecution had examined sufficient witnesses to prove its case. He added that the trial court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants after appreciation of the evidence.

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Verma asserted that the alibi taken by the appellant’s counsel did not inspire confidence. Even if it was assumed for argument sake that the location of mobile phone used by accused was different from the crime spot at the fateful time, it did not mean that he was not present there.

“Presumption cannot be ruled out that the mobile number might have been used by some other person at the time of occurrence. In the presence of depositions made by the prosecutrix, her mother, the doctor and the medical legal evidence, it cannot be held that the accused was not present at the time of commission of offence. Further, it is well established principle of the law that plea of alibi has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt,” the Bench added.

Upholding the conviction, the Bench modified the sentence to 10 years imprisonment after taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances.