Section 9

Conclusion
The article finishes by summarising Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. The facts
are classified as either explanatory or introductory to the relevant facts or facts at issue. The
facts must be explained or introduced, and they must be relevant or supportive to the court’s
argument. It can also be rebutted if an inference is drawn from a disputed fact, and otherwise,
it can identify anything or anybody related to the fact or facts in the issue or when the
relevant facts occur. The information that demonstrates the relationship between the parties
involved in the transaction must also be relevant to the facts.

Different tests are also utilized to determine the facts that can be presented as evidence in
court by identifying facts. The identification parade test is used to assess the memory of an
eyewitness against the accused. The identification of a person is the process of identifying an
accused person or a deceased person using any markings or an identification examination, or
through identifying family members. It is also detected through picture identification, which
is utilized by authorities to identify the perpetrator from eyewitnesses.

Section 10

Limitations:

Section 10 is subject to the following limitations:

 The court cannot admit evidence that is prejudicial or irrelevant, even if it is relevant
to the common design of the conspiracy.

 The court cannot admit evidence that is privileged.

 The court cannot admit evidence that is self-serving.

Conclusion:

It may be concluded that there is no discretionary power given to the courts as to the
admissibility of the statements made under section 10 of the Act, but there are some essential
ingredients which has to be fulfilled in this regard. Those ingredients are stated in the case of
bhagwant Swaroop v. State of Maharashtra[21] are:

 There shall be prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a court to
believe that two or more persons are member of a conspiracy;
 If the said condition is fulfilled then anything said, done or written by anyone of them
in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the others;
  anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him
after the intention was formed by any one of them;
 it would also be relevant for the said purpose against the another who entered the
conspiracy, whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or
after he left;
 And it can be used only against and not in his favour.

The time of the thing said, done or written is also a essential thing to look after before the
admissibility of the statement that on the time when the statement is made at that time the
conspiracy was on or not, a statement cannot be admissible under section 10 if the statement
is made before the time when the conspiracy was first entertained and after the conspiracy is
end.

Hence it is clear that there is no discretionary power given to the court for the admission of
the statements made under section 10 of Evidence Act but there are some prima facie and
circumstantial evidences which must proved before any admission of the statement under this
section of the Act.

Section 11

Sections dealing with Plea of Alibi

Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: “When facts not otherwise relevant become
relevant: facts not otherwise relevant are relevant (i) if they are inconsistent with any fact in
issue or relevant fact, (ii) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the
existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or
improbable.”

Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: According to this, “The burden of proof as to
any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless
it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.”

Limits and challenges to the plea of alibi

It is not easy for the accused to use the plea of alibi before the Court to prove his innocence
by pleading that he was elsewhere from the place where the crime took place. There are a few
challenges to the plea, and they are listed below:

 The burden is completely on the accused to prove that he is innocent and that he
was somewhere else from the place where the crime has actually taken place.
 The court will presume that the accused was on the crime scene and that he is the
one who committed the crime. The accused has to prove that the presumption is
wrong.
  The plea of alibi must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; even a slight doubt
about the presence of the accused at the crime scene can reject the plea.

Conclusion
The scope of the plea of alibi is in the hands of the accused, who has to prove his innocence
by proving to the court that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, which he
has been accused of. If the plea of alibi is accepted and proved, the Court shall acquit the
accused according to Section 11(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, as his presence in one place is
inconsistent with the place where the crime has taken place. The plea gives the defence
(though it is not included in the general exceptions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) to the
accused by implying his impossibility to commit the crime because of his absence at the
crime spot.

FAQs

1. Is there any scope for Section 11(1) of Indian Evidence Act other than the plea of
alibi?

Section 11(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has other scopes as well, other than the plea
of alibi. The other scopes of Section 11(1) are listed below.

 Non access of husband to show illegitimacy of issue: If a husband has no access to

the wife for more than the gestation period, the fact that the child born after the
gestation period is an illegitimate child is a relevant fact under Section 11(1). The fact
that the husband has no access is inconsistent with the fact that a child has been born
without begetting.

 Survival of the alleged death: If there is an allegation that A killed B on 01-01-2023.

The fact that B was alive till 01-02-2023 is relevant under Section 11(1), as the date
till which B was alive is inconsistent with the alleged date of B’s murder by A.

 Commission of a crime by third person: A is charged with the murder of B, if A

could prove that it was C who actually killed B. The fact that C actually killed B is a
relevant fact under Section 11(1), as it is inconsistent with the fact that A killed B.

2. Is the distance relevant to the plea of alibi?

The distance between the place where the accused was really there and where the crime really
took place is immaterial to the court. The main criteria for the plea of alibi is to prove the
impossibility of the accused committing the crime. If the accused could prove that he was far
away from the crime scene at the time when the crime was committed, and hence convince
the court how it would be impossible for him to commit the crime then that alone is enough
to prove the plea of alibi. Hence, distance is irrelevant in the plea of alibi.
 3. Does failure to prove the plea of alibi lessen the burden on the prosecution?

Even in cases where the accused could not prove the plea of alibi, the accused won’t be
convicted for the crime. Even if the accused was at the place where the crime took place, he
might not have committed it. It is the prosecution’s duty to prove to the court that the accused
was the person who committed the crime. The duty of the prosecution is not limited to just
proving the place where the accused was when the crime took place, but to actually proving
the guilt of the accused.