Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Hypothesis
The researcher has assumed the following points
Research Methodology
In this project, the researcher has relied on the Doctrinal Method, which is primarily based
upon books, journals, news, articles etc. A comprehensive study is made in order to arrive at
analytical & critical support of the arguments. The segments are structured and written actively.
The writing style is descriptive as well as analytical. This project has been done after a thorough
research based upon intrinsic and extrinsic aspect of the assigned topic.
Scope
While the seventh section defines the meaning of the term 'relevancy' in quasi-scientific
language, the present section contains a statement in popular language of what in the former
section is attempted to be stated in scientific language. The practical effect of those two sections
is to make every relevant fact admissible as evidence. 1 This section attempts to state in popular
language the general theory of relevancy and may, therefore, be described as the residuary
section dealing with the relevancy of facts.2
The construction of section 11 must be inferred from the words of the section. The section
requires that the irrelevant fact to be introduced in evidence in order to be relevant must be
inconsistent with the fact in issue or relevant fact or makes the existence or non-existence of such
fact highly probable which means very high degree of probability is required. Facts which are of
merely probative force cannot be offered in evidence under the section.3
Meaning of Alibi
The word 'alibi' is of Latin origin and means ``elsewhere'`. It is a convention term used for the
defense taken by an accused that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the
place of occurrence that it is highly improbable that he would have participated in the crime.
Alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Indian Penal Code or any other
law. It is only a rule of evidence recognized in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that fats which are
inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. Plea of Alibi is the defense taken by the accused.
It means that he was physically not present at the time of scene of offence by reason of his
presence at another place. The burden of proving alibi is on accused. A plea of alibi if raised at
the earliest opportunity would receive great credence. The accused must be so far away at the
relevant time that he could not be away at the place where the crime was committed. In criminal
trial, defense of alibi is not generally accepted unless backed by strong and solid evidence.
According to the principles laid down by the higher judiciary, the plea of alibi taken by the
accused needs to be considered only when the burden which lies on the prosecution has been
discharged satisfactorily. If the prosecution has failed in discharging its burden of proving the
commission of crime by the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, it may not be necessary to go
into the question whether the accused has succeeded in proving the defense of alibi.4
The burden of proving commission of offence by the accused so as to fasten the liability of guilt
on him remains on the prosecution and would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused
had adopted the defense of alibi. The plea of alibi taken by the accused needs to be considered
only when the burden which lies on the prosecution has been discharged satisfactorily. If the
prosecution has failed in the discharging its burden of proving the commission of crime by the
accused beyond any reasonable doubt, it may not be necessary to go into the question whether
4 http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/631717/
the accused has succeeded in proving the defense of alibi5. But once the prosecution succeeds in
discharging its burden then it is incumbent on the accused taking the plea of alibi to prove it with
certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence a the place and time of occurrence. An
obligation is cast on the Court to weigh in scales the evidence adduced by the prosecution in
proving of the guilt of the accused and the evidence adduced by the accused in proving his
defence of alibi. If the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a
standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the place
and time of occurrence, the Court would evaluate the prosecution evidence to see if the evidence
adduced on behalf of the prosecution leaves any slot available to fit therein the defense of alibi.
The burden of the accused is undoubtedly heavy. This flows from Section 103 of the Evidence
Act which provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who
wishes the Court to believe in its existence. However, while weighing the prosecution case and
the defense case, pitted against each other, if the balance tilts in favor of the accused, the
prosecution would fail and the accused would be entitled to benefit of that reasonable doubt
which would emerge in the mind of the Court.
Plea of Alibi
Alibis a Latin word meaning elsewhere. The defense of alibi is a legitimate defense, and, in fact,
is often the only evidence of an innocent man.
It is a convenient term used for the defense taken by an accused that when the occurrence took
place, he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it was highly improbable that he
would have participated in the crime. Alibis not an exception (special or general) envisaged in
the Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognized under section 11 of the
Evidence Act that facts, which are inconsistent with the fact in issue, are relevant. The burden of
proving commission of offence by the accused so as to fasten the liability of guilt on him remains
on the prosecution. The plea of alibi taken by the accused needs to be considered only when the
burden, which lies on the prosecution, is discharged satisfactorily. But once the prosecution
succeeds in discharging its burden, and then it is incumbent upon the accused taking the plea of
alibi to prove it with certainty, so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place and
time of occurrence.6
The theory of an alibi that the fact of presence elsewhere is essentially inconsistent with the
presence at the place and time alleged, and therefore personal participation is the fact.7 The
credibility of an alibi is greatly strengthened, if it be set up at the moment when the accusation is
first made, and be consistently maintained throughout the subsequent proceedings. On the other
hand, it is a material circumstance to lessen the weight of this defense, if it be not resorted to
until sometime after the charge has been made.8 An alibi, not set up at the very earliest stage, is,
in most cases, unconvincing, but that is no reason why the courts should fail to give due weight
to public documents filed before them, and afford reasonable facilities for the accused to call his
evidence. Usually, a request to call an alibi witness at the very end is vexatious and dilatory
6 Karanjit Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2004 Cr LJ 4139 (J&K)
7 Wigmore, section 136
8 Wills' Circumstantial Evidence, p. 281
unless the alibi has been indicated at the earlier stages.9 Where the accused sets up a plea of alibi
that he was on duty at other town on the date of occurrence, the burden of proof lies on him
under section 103 to establish the plea. It is not for the prosecution to prove the fact.10
The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene
of offence by reason of his presence at another place. The plea can therefore, succeed only if it is
shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the
place where the crime was committed.11
The plea of alibi taken by the accused needs to be considered only when the burden, which lies
on the prosecution, has been discharged satisfactorily. If the prosecution has failed in discharging
its burden of proving of commission of crime by the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, it
may not be necessary to go into it. But, once the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden,
then it is incumbent on the accused taking the plea of alibi to prove it with certainty so as to
exclude the possibility of his presence at the place and time of occurrence. An obligation is cast
on the court to weigh in scales the evidence of the prosecution in proving of the guilt of the
accused and the evidence adduced by the accused in proving his defence of alibi.12
It is well-established that it is for the accused to prove the case of alibi to the hilt.13 It is the basic
law that in a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present
at the scene and has participated in the crime. Once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the
burden, it is incumbent on the accused who adopts the plea for alibi to prove it with absolute
certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence.14
9 Sahdeo v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, 1954 VP 6
10 Satya Vir v. State, 1958 Cr LJ 1260
11 Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 911
12 Jayantibhai Bhenkaarbhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2002 SC 3569
13 Hari Chand v. State of Delhi, (1996) 9 SCC 112
14 Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 322
It should be pleaded at the earliest opportunity.15 Alibi should cover the time of the alleged
offence. In proving his alibi, the accused should not be required to prove the exact time or every
moment of time involved in order to sustain his defense. On the other hand, it is sufficient for
him to raise a reasonable doubt of his presence at the scene of the crime at the time that it was
committed. But, it must cover the time, when the offence is shown to have been committed, so as
to preclude the possibility of the prisoner's presence at the place of the crime at the relevant time.
For, if it were possible that he could have been at both places, the proof of the alibi is absolutely
valueless. The failure to establish a plea of alibi does not give rise to a presumption as to his
complicity in the crime. But, when all is said against an adverse inference, Judges and Juries
being after all human, it is difficult to ignore the subtle effect of a plea of alibi which has utterly
broken down and deliberate fabrication of evidence which is always a circumstance pointing,
though never conclusively, to the guilt of the accused.16
According to the Supreme Court the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case merely
because the evidence in support of the plea of alibi taken by the accused is found to be
untrustworthy.17
In case of plea of alibi, court is considering the whole evidence to make any conclusion about
guilt or innocence of that accused, which makes plea of alibi
Conclusion
The researcher came on this conclusion, that honorable Apex Courts have explained two
important principles about plea of alibi. Among these principles, one principle is that guilt cannot
be inferred from making of false plea of alibi. And other principle is that accused cannot take
benefit through plea of alibi when reasonable doubt is not created in mind of court about
accuseds participation in commission of offence. The researcher also found that Section 11 of
Indian Evidence Act 1872, does not speak about only Alibi but it also deal with the inconsistent
facts.
Bibliography
BOOKS
Thomas
Law of Evidence H.K.Saharay & M.S.Saharay,2008
E-SOURCES
indiankanoon.org/doc/1188602
www.thehindu.com/.../binayak-sen-among-six-people-charged-with-seditio.
www.dnaindia.com/topic/cedric-prakash
http://www.countercurrents.org/gatade030608.htm.
indiankanoon.org/doc/111867
indiankanoon.org/doc/639296
www.thehindu.com Opinion Comment
www.epw.in/ejournal/term/1/_/taxonomy%3Aterm%3A10598
www.jus.unitn.it/users/toniatti/dircosteu/topics/aa0405/Choudhury.doc
www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/298/case.htm
http://www.shareyouressays.com/120399/section-11-of-the-indian-evidence-act-1872-2
http://www.manupatrafast.in/ba/COMdispcom.aspx?nid=2341&nactcompid=15587