Standard Of Burden Of Proof To Prove Alibi By The Accused Is Very High

Coverage of this Article

INTRODUCTION

-In the simplest terms, a Plea of Alibi could be understood as a defence in criminal proceedings where an accused tries to establish that he could not have committed the offence as he was elsewhere, and not present at the scene of the crime.

LEGAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH PLEA OF ALIBI

-Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with the situation when facts, which are otherwise irrelevant, become relevant due to their contradictory or supportive nature in favour of the accused. 

PAPPU TIWARY VS STATE OF JHARKHAND

-In the present case, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India against the order of the High Court of Jharkhand which affirmed the sentence of the Trial Court which convicted the appellant under section 302 and section 34 of the IPC and also rejected the plea of alibi of the convict.

OVERVIEW

-The facts of the matter are such that on 07.03.2000 at around 1:00 P.M. one Vikas Kumar Singh (victim) was going to the gym when 6 people surrounded the victim namely Pappu Tiwari, Sanjay Ram, Uday Pal, Ajay Pal, Pintu Tiwari, and Upendra Tiwari. Pappu Tiwary fired his pistol which caused the victim to fall down on the road and the rest of the 5 people repeatedly stabbed the victim.

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

-Whether the Trial Court and the High Court erred in their judgement by rejecting the plea of alibi?

JUDGEMENT

-Examining the plea of alibi, the Supreme Court referred to the findings of the Trial Court which noted that the counsel for the appellant failed to produce the x-ray plate or Dr. M.P Singh to support the argument. Moreover, no papers of admission to the hospital were produced..

CONCLUSION

-Plea of Alibi is one of the most common and the strongest defence in criminal cases. Multiple pronouncements over the years have devised the formula to prevent misuse of such pleas and have therefore concluded that the standard of proof to prove such pleas is very high on the accused.

INTRODUCTION

In the simplest terms, a Plea of Alibi could be understood as a defence in criminal proceedings where an accused tries to establish that he could not have committed the offence as he was elsewhere, and not present at the scene of the crime. The burden of proof lies on the accused to establish the plea that he was somewhere else during the commission of the crime. Generally, a Plea of Alibi is sought at the initial stage of the proceedings, as it’s a very good defence that could completely absolve the accused from the crime before going into the nuances of the case.

LEGAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH PLEA OF ALIBI

Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with the situation when facts, which are otherwise irrelevant, become relevant due to their contradictory or supportive nature in favour of the accused. The Section acknowledges the Plea of Alibi in illustration (A).
Section 103 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 establishes that the burden to prove a certain fact lies on the accused.
Both these sections work in conjunction to give us a reasonable picture to understand the meaning of Plea of Alibi.

PAPPU TIWARY VS STATE OF JHARKHAND

In the present case, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India against the order of the High Court of Jharkhand which affirmed the sentence of the Trial Court which convicted the appellant under section 302 and section 34 of the IPC and also rejected the plea of alibi of the convict.

OVERVIEW

1. The facts of the matter are such that on 07.03.2000 at around 1:00 P.M. one Vikas Kumar Singh (victim) was going to the gym when 6 people surrounded the victim namely Pappu Tiwari, Sanjay Ram, Uday Pal, Ajay Pal, Pintu Tiwari, and Upendra Tiwari. Pappu Tiwary fired his pistol which caused the victim to fall down on the road and the rest of the 5 people repeatedly stabbed the victim.
2. Hearing the disturbance, Pankaj Kumar Singh, brother of the victim, and other villagers came to inspect the scene, when the accused fled away. On the basis of fardbeyan by the brother of the victim, an FIR (Case No.33 of 2000) was registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, against the 6 accused, where Arms Act was slapped only on the Pappu Tiwari.
3. The Post Mortem conducted by Dr. Mahesh Prasad Singh, Medical Officer, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Garhwa opined that the death was caused due by shock and haemorrhage caused by vital and multiple injuries. Firearm injuries were also identified.
4. In terms of the judgement dated 27.05.2002, by the Court of Session, all the 6 accused persons were convicted as charged, and in terms of order dated 28.05.2002, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Jharkhand High Court affirmed the conviction of all 6 convicts via an order dated 07.05.2000. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, Pappu Tiwari filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India.
5. The learned counsel appearing for Upendra Tiwari, to support the plea of alibi, referred to the depositions of the two defence witnesses, Rajendra Yadav (DW-1) and Samsuddin Ansari (DW-2). DW-1 deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 24.01.2000 he had x-rayed the right knee of Upendra Tiwari. DW-2 stated that he knew Upendra Tiwari and on 24.01.2000, he saw Upendra Tiwari after falling from a motorcycle who was reeling in pain. The principal argument advanced by the counsel was that since Upendra Tiwari had a fractured leg, he couldn't be present at the scene of the crime. Two witnesses were also examined as court witnesses on the prayer of the defence to support the argument.

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

Indian Penal Code 1908

• Section 302- Punishment for Murder.
• Section 34- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arms Act 1959

• Section 27- Punishment for using arms.

ISSUES FRAMED BY THE APEX COURT

• Whether the Trial Court and the High Court erred in their judgement by rejecting the plea of alibi?

JUDGEMENT

1. Examining the plea of alibi, the Supreme Court referred to the findings of the Trial Court which noted that the counsel for the appellant failed to produce the x-ray plate or Dr. M.P Singh to support the argument. Moreover, no papers of admission to the hospital were produced.
2. The Apex court referred to the judgement in the case of Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) where it was held that where the Trial Court and the High Court have rejected the plea of alibi, it requires no further intervention. “The burden on the accused is rather heavy and he is required to establish the plea of alibi with certitude.”
3. The Supreme Court also referred to the judgement in the case of Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana where it was held that the plea of alibi in fact is required to be “proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence and in the house which was the home of their relatives.”
4. The Court further noticed that the most material witness would have been Dr. M.P Singh was also not produced by the counsel for the appellant. The Court concluded that Upendra Tiwari had failed to discharge the burden to establish the plea of alibi and, thus, the trial court and the High Court cannot be said to have fallen into any error in rejecting the plea of alibi. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Plea of Alibi is one of the most common and the strongest defence in criminal cases. Multiple pronouncements over the years have devised the formula to prevent misuse of such pleas and have therefore concluded that the standard of proof to prove such pleas is very high on the accused. Even before the Independence, the Judiciary has worked to refine the concept of plea of Alibi:
In the case of Sk. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra it was held that “plea of alibi has to be proved with the absolute certainty of facts to show that the complete possibility of the accused was not present at the place of crime at the relevant time when such crime happened”

The Plea of Alibi is one of the defences that is used at the earliest point of time in the proceedings. Other defence pleas are generally reserved for the later stage of the trial. It signifies the critical position that it holds in a criminal trial where potentially the life of the accused is at stake.