PLEA OF ALIBI: SECTION 11 OF

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE,1872

 SECTION 11: When facts not otherwise
relevant become relevant.
 Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant—(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.
 PLEA OF ALIBI
 Alibi is a Latin word which means elsewhere and is used when the
accused takes the plea that when the occurrence of an event took place
he was elsewhere.
 “The plea of absence of a person accused from the place of
occurrence, at the time of the commission of the offence is
called the plea of Alibi.”
 It is a rule of evidence recognized by Section 11 of the Evidence Act
that facts inconsistent with fact in issue are relevant.
 According to section 113 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies
on the accused only and not on the prosecution.
 The plea of alibi has to be taken at the earliest opportunity and it has to
be proved to the satisfaction of the court.
ILLUSTRATIONS
 X is accused of Y's murder on a particular day at Pune.
On that day X was at Bombay, is relevant to prove
alibi. X has to prove that it would be impossible for
him to commit murder at Pune as he was in Bombay
on the occurrence of the offence.
 The question is, whether A committed a crime. The
circumstances are such that the crime must have been
committed either by A, B, C or D, every fact which
shows that the crime could have been committed by no
one else and that it was not committed by either B, C
or D, is relevant.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS
 Munshi Prasad and others v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC
3031)
The presence of accused at a distance of 400-500 yards between the
place of occurrence cannot be said to be presence elsewhere. It
cannot be an impossibility to be at a place of occurrence.
 Vijay Pal Singh v. State(GNCT),Delhi (AIR 2015 SC 1495)
The Supreme Court said that the burden of proof upon the accused
is rather heavy and he is required to establish the plea of alibi with
certitude. The plea can only 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 crime was committed.
 Lakhan Singh @ Pappu vs The State of NCT of Delhi, Delhi
HC Crl Appeal No. 166/1999
The plea of alibi cannot be equated with a plea of self-defence and ought
to be taken at the first instance and not belatedly at the stage of defence
evidence. In any case, the appellant/accused gives no reason or
explanations for not taking this plea of alibi at the earliest opportunity.
 Mohinder Singh v. State, AIR 1953 SC 415 : 1953 Cri LJ 1761
The Supreme Court held that the standard of proof required in regard to
a plea of alibi must be the same as the standard applied to the prosecution
evidence and in both cases it should be a reasonable standard.
 Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 166
The plea of alibi was explained by Supreme Court by observing that:
“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.”