- In the case of Pappu Tiwary vs State of Jharkhand, the Hon’ble SC has reiterated that the burden to prove the plea of alibi is on the accused and it is a heavy burden. Plea of alibi is provided in section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act where it is provided that facts which are otherwise irrelevant, become relevant when they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact.
- In the instant case, Pappu Tiwari, Sanjay Ram, Ajay Pal, Pintu Tiwari and Law Tiwari were convicted by the trial court under section 302 of IPC. This decision was confirmed by the HC.
- On the aspect of juvenility, an inquiry was conducted by the CJM according to which it was seen that the accused Pintu Tiwari was a minor at the time of the occurrence and had remained in jail for a period of three years already, his further detention could not be ordered in view of section 15 and 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
- Three of the convicts filed an appeal against the order of the HC.
- In appeal, Law Tiwari pleaded the defence of alibi and stated that the date of occurrence was 26-01-2000 and he had his leg broken on 24-01-2022. He pleaded that since his leg was broken on the day of the crime he could not have been present at the scene of the crime and hence was falsely implicated in the case.
- The Apex Court relied upon the case of Vijay Pal vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2015)4 SCC where it was held that when the Trial Court as well as the HC has disbelieved the plea of alibi then it is not for the SC to question the same. For the plea of alibi to stand, the accused would have to prove his case with absolute certainty and should be of a quality that the Court could entertain a reasonable doubt. It was also held in this case that “the burden on the accused is heavy and he is required to establish his plea of alibi with certitude”.
- The Court also relied upon the decision of the SC in Jitender Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC where it was held that the plea of alibi has to be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused from the scene of the crime.
- It was on the basis of these two decisions that the SC found no merit in the plea of alibi pleaded by Law Tiwari. It was held that the burden was on the accused and he had failed to discharge the same.
- The Court, while dismissing his plea, also said that it was not a case of an opportunity not being granted to him. He had led two witnesses in support of his case and two Court witnesses had also been summoned but he had been unable to satisfy the Court.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
