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, (Criminal), 2017 (1)- [2 LM (AD) 76] ....View Full Judgment

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: ÒAvR c~e© cvwK¯Ív‡bi Bmjvg QvÎms‡Ni mfvcwZi PÆMªv‡g AvMgb Ó evZ©v cwi‡ekK, Ò cvwK¯Ívb Bmjvgx QvÎ ms‡Ni c~e© cvwK¯Ív‡bi kvLvi mfvcwZ Rbve Avjx Avnmvb †gvnvg¥` gyRvnx‡`i 3 w`‡bi md‡i AvR XvKv ‡_‡K Avwmqv †cuvQv‡eb| GLv‡b Ae¯’vbKv‡j wZwb `jxq Kgx©‡`i Ges ivR‰bwZK †bZ„e„›`‡`i mwnZ †`‡ki eZ©gvb cwiw¯’wZ m¤ú‡K© Av‡jvPbv Ki‡eb Ges myax mgv‡e‡k e³„Zv Kwi‡eb ewjqv GK †cªm wiwj‡R ejv nBqv‡Q Ó |
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 on 24.11.1971, the appellant, who was 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, (Criminal), 2017 (1)- [2 LM (AD) 364] ....View Full Judgment

Alibi postulates physical impossibility of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at some other place.
The burden of proving the plea of alibi lay on the defence. ….. ( State Vs. Mofzzal Hossain Pramanik, 43 DLR (AD) (1991) 64A )
Mere submission of some papers in support of alibi is not sufficient; the papers should be produced in evidence by some witness who must face cross-examination as to whether the papers are genuine or fabricated. ….. ( Nannu Gazi Vs. Awlad Hossain & others, 43 DLR (AD) (1991) 63 )
Plea of alibi without calling evidence in support of it is not plea at all. ….. ( State Vs. Manzoor Ahmed, 18 DLR (SC) (1966) 444 )
See, ss. 3, 11, 153 of the Evidence Act, 1872.