Professional Documents
Culture Documents
drishtijudiciary.com_to-the-point_ttp-indian-evidence-act_plea-of-alibi_print=2
drishtijudiciary.com_to-the-point_ttp-indian-evidence-act_plea-of-alibi_print=2
drishtijudiciary.com_to-the-point_ttp-indian-evidence-act_plea-of-alibi_print=2
print=2
The concept of Alibi is not defined under the law, but it is impliedly enshrined under Section 11(1) of
the IEA which is a residuary provision.
Section 11 deals with when facts not otherwise relevant become relevant. It states that –
(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact.
(2) 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.
It means that the facts which are irrelevant become relevant when they form the existence or non-
existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly certain or uncertain.
Illustration
(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day,
A was at Lahore is relevant.
The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where
it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed
it, is relevant.
The burden of proof lies upon the accused and the relevant provision is Section 103 of IEA.
Section 103 states that 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.
Illustration
(a) A prosecutes B for theft and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove
the admission.
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-indian-evidence-act/plea-of-alibi?print=2 1/2
5/17/24, 8:25 AM drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-indian-evidence-act/plea-of-alibi?print=2
Case Laws
In Binay Kumar and others v. State of Bihar (1996), the Supreme Court stressed upon the fact that
the burden of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt is not reduced by the mere
facts that accused has resorted the plea of Alibi. The plea needs to be considered only when the
prosecution has discharged its burden satisfactorily.
In Jayantibhai Bhenkerbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002), It was held that the burden of proof upon
the accused under Section 103 is undoubtedly heavy. However, while considering the prosecution
and the defense evidence if the balance tilts in favor of the accused. The prosecution would fail, and
the accused would get the benefit.
Plea of Alibi is not maintainable in certain circumstances, some of which are enumerated below:
In cases of torts such as defamation, contributory negligence etc.
In matrimonial cases such as divorce, maintenance etc.
Where the case is related to common intention, all who had common intention are liable,
irrespective of the fact whether they were present at the scene of occurrence or not.
Conclusion
To sum up, we should be aware of the fact that the Plea of Alibi is based upon facts inconsistent with
any fact in issue or relevant fact.
Plea of Alibi is not part of General Exception under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) rather it is
a rule of evidence and the burden upon accused.
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-indian-evidence-act/plea-of-alibi?print=2 2/2