________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

KERWA DAM ROAD

BHOPAL

________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________
TRIMESTER: VIII TRIMESTER

SESSION: 2010 – 2011

SUBJECT: THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, 1872

_____________________________________________

A PROJECT PAPER ON:

PLEA OF ALIBI ….

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED

BY :

MR. SANJAY YADAV SHWETANK TIWARI

( ASST. PROFESSOR) 2008 BA.LLB

(HONS.) 14
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

______________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS ….

Declaration by Author.................................................................................................................................
Author................................................................................................................................. 3

Research Methodology................................................................................................................................
Methodology................................................................................................................................ 4

SECTION 11:..............................................................................................................................................
11:.............................................................................................................................................. 6

Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant:-...........................................................................................

relevant:-...........................................................................................66

Illustrations:.........................................................................................................................................
Illustrations:......................................................................................................................................... 7

EXPLANATION …....................................................................................................................................
….................................................................................................................................... 7

EXAMPLES FROM Literature …........................................................................................................

…........................................................................................................ 11

WIDE SCOPE OF THE SECTION …..................................................................................................

….................................................................................................. 14

COMMENTS AND CONCLUSION …....................................................................................................

….................................................................................................... 15

CASE LAWS ….......................................................................................................................................

…....................................................................................................................................... 16

(1) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA …......................................................................................

…......................................................................................16
16

(2) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA …......................................................................................

…......................................................................................16
16

(3) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA …......................................................................................

…......................................................................................17
17

(4) KARNATAKA HIGH COURT …......................................................................................

…...................................................................................... 17

(5) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT …........................................................................................

…........................................................................................ 18

(6) GAUHATI HIGH COURT ….............................................................................................

…............................................................................................. 18

(7) DELHI HIGH COURT …...................................................................................................

…................................................................................................... 18

(8) BOMBAY HIGH COURT …..............................................................................................

….............................................................................................. 19

(9) KERALA HIGH COURT …...............................................................................................

…............................................................................................... 19

(10) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT …........................................................................................

…........................................................................................ 19

2
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

Bibliography..............................................................................................................................................
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................................. 20

Declaration by Author

‘‘THE TEXT REPORTED IN THE PROJECT IS THE OUTCOME OF MY OWN EFFORTS AND NO PART OF THIS

REPORT HAS BEEN COPIED IN ANY UNAUTHORIZED MANNER AND NO PART IN IT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED

WITHOUT DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT’’

SHWETANK TIWARI

2008 BA LLB 14

A-0788

3
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 PURPOSE OF STUDY
This project aims to study scope of Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, with
emphasis on the Plea Of Alibi and case laws relating to it.

 SOURCES OF DATA
The researcher has used only secondary sources of information for the purposes of this
paper.
The project involves a varied reading of the material on the topic. They include:
 Books by eminent and reputed authors on the topic.
 Internet Sources.
 Relevant Articles on the subject.

 MAIN ISSUES COVERED

The following issues have been studied:
1. Explanation of Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. Detailed explanation of the Plea Of Alibi.
3. Detailed explanation of the words “Highly Probable and Improbable” and the
interdependence of the above two points.
4. Explanations from the Historical and Literary Theories.

 FOOTNOTING
The researcher has followed a uniform style of footnoting throughout.

4
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The project explains section 11 of the evidence act with reference to both the clauses
and its overview.

The Limitation in the project is that because of the Interdependence of both the clauses
of section 11, the Researcher has not been able to separate the issue of plea of alibi and explain
it in its broad overview. Moreover, Foreign Cases has not been dealt with.
However, a variety of Indian case laws have been considered.

5
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

SECTION 11:

Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant:-

a. If they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact :

b. 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

Illustrations:

(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta at 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
a place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable though not
impossible, that he committed it is relevant.

(b) 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.

6
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

EXPLANATION ….

An Alibi is not an exception envisaged under the IPC. It is a rule of evidence recognized by
section 11 of the Evidence Act, that facts inconsistent with the facts in issue are relevant. The
Latin word “alibi” means elsewhere. It is used when the accused takes the plea that when the
occurrence took place he was elsewhere, and that it is extremely improbable that he could have
committed the crime. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at
the scene and participated in the crime. But when the presence of the accused at the scene has
been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, the court would be
slow to accept evidence that he was elsewhere. If however, the evidence adduced by the accused
is of such a nature that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at
the scene, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. The burden is on the
accused and heavy and strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. In Hari Chand
vs State Of Delhi1 , the defense witness stated that the accused was present at the office and
proved certain challans allegedly issued by the accused but there were no dates , and the witness
never told the police about it or to the higher authorities when he knew about the arrest of the
accused. In such circumstances, the court was justified in refusing to accept the Plea Of Alibi.
The Plea of Alibi was also not accepted in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs Dharmvi2, (advocates
evidence that the accused was in his office at the time of the occurrence): and in Mithilesh
Upadhayaya vs State Of Bihar3. (accused claiming to be inmate of hospital, when no documents
were produced ).

It was not impossible for the accused to be at the place of occurrence and also at the Panchayat
Meet because the distance between the two places, namely, the place of occurrence and the place
where the Panchayat met was only four to five hundred yards. The plea of alibi is based on
physical impossibility of being at the scene of crime and so the distance is a very material factor4.

1
(1996) 9 SCC 112 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 950.
2
(1997) 4 SCC 496.
3
(1997) SCC (Cri) : AIR 1997 SC 2457.
4
Munshi Prasad vs. State Of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 351 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 175.

7
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

The Plea Of Alibi taken by the accused needs to be considered only when the burden which lies
on the prosecution has been discharged satisfactorily. If the prosecution has failed in discharging
its burden of proving the commission of crime by the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, it
may not be necessary to go into the question whether has accused has succeeded in proving
Alibi. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden, then it is incumbent on the
accused taking the plea of alibi to prove it with certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his
presence at the place and time of occurrence. The burden of the accused is undoubtedly heavy.
However, while weighing the prosecution case and the defense case against each other , the
balance tilts in favour of the accused5.

The usual method of dealing with the facts coming under this section is to equate them to facts
coming under item 2 of section 9 , that is , facts , which support or rebut an interference
suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact. So treated, though the section purports to deal with a
special set of facts, it really deals with facts which would be logically relevant. So treated,
though the section purports to deal with a special set of facts, it really deals with facts which
would be logically relevant. One fact is logically relevant to another, when, if we believe in
the existence of one, another fact follows as an interference, i.e., a fact is logically relevant to a
fact in issue or relevant act, when it makes the existence or non existence of such fact in issue or
relevant fact, highly probable or improbable. If this is so, the act deals with both logical and legal
relevancy. In fact, it would look as if the two conceptions of logical and legal relevancy are the
same for the purposes of the Act. Sir James Stephen has explained the section thus:

“It may possibly be argued that the effect of the second paragraph of section 11 would be admit
proof of such facts as these. It may, for instance, be said: A (not called as witness) was heard to
declare that he had seen B commit a crime. This makes it highly probable that B did commit that
crime. Therefore, A’s declaration is relevant fact under section 11(2). This was not the intention
of the section, as is shown by the elaborate provisions contained in Section 17-39 as to
particular classes of statements which are regarded as relevant facts because of the
circumstances under which they are made invest them with importance, or because no better
evidence can be got. The sorts of facts which the section was intended to include are facts which
either exclude or imply more or less distinctly the existence of the facts sought to be proved.

5
Jayanthilal Bhankar Bhai vs. State Of Gujarat, (2002) 8 SCC 165.

8
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

Some degree of latitude was designedly left in the wording of the section (in compliance with a
suggestion from the madras government) on account of the variety of matters to which it might
apply. The meaning of the section would have been more fully expressed if words to the
following effect had been added to it:”

“No statement shall be regarded as rendering the matter stated highly probable within the
meaning of this section unless it is declared to be a relevant fact under some other section of
this Act.”

The reason why statements as to facts made by persons not called as witnesses are excluded,
except in certain specified cases (section 17-39) are various. In the first place , it is a matter of
common experience that statements in common conversation are made so lightly, and are so
reliable to be misunderstood or misrepresented, that they cannot be depended upon for any
important purpose unless they are made under special circumstances.

It may be said that this is an objection to the weight of such statements and not to their relevancy,
and there is some degree of truth in this remark. No doubt, when a man has to inquire into facts
of which he receives in the first instance very confused accounts, it may and often will be
extremely important for him to trace the most cursory and apparently futile report. And facts
relevant in the highest degree to facts in issue may often be discovered in this manner. A
policemen or a lawyer engaged in getting up a case, criminal or civil, would neglect his duty
altogether if he shuts his ear to everything which was not relevant within the meaning of the
evidence act. A judge or magistrate in India frequently has to perform duties which in England
would be performed by police officers or attorneys. He has to sift out the truth for himself as
well as he can with little assistance of a professional kind. Section 165 Is intended to arm the
judge with the most extensive power possible for the purpose of getting the truth. The effect of
this section is that in order to get the bottom of the manner before it , the court will be able to
look at and inquire into every fact whatever. It will not, however, be able to find its judgment
upon the class of statements in question.

This exposition of Sir James Stephen has provoked criticism from two eminent authorities.
Mr. Field and Mr. Justice West. The latter had said:

9
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

“This section (section 11) is expressed in terms so extensive that any fact , which can, by a
chain of ratiocination, be brought into connexion with another, so as to have a bearing upon
a point in issue, may possibly be held to be relevant within its meaning. As the connexions of
human affairs are so infinitely various and so far reaching, that thus to take the section in its
widest admissible sense would be to complicate every trial with a mass of collateral inquiries
limited only by the patience and the means of the parties. One of the objects of a law of
evidence is to restrict the investigations made by the courts within the bounds prescribed by
general convenience, and this object would be completely frustrated by the admission , on all
occasions , of every circumstances on either side having some remote and conjectural
probative force, the precise amount of which might itself be ascertainable only by a long trial
and a determination of fresh collateral issues , growing up in endless succession , as the
enquiry proceeded.”

Obviously the learned judge has missed the whole point of section 11 . It is not “any fact which
can by a chain of ratiocination, be brought into connexion” or “every circumstance on either
side having some remote and conjectural probative force” mentioned by the learned judge that
is included in section 11 ; but only facts , which make the existence of a fact in issue highly
probable or improbable, that are contemplated by the section.

Mr Field has stated :

“ The section (section 11) can hardly be limited as has been suggested to those facts which are
relevant under some other provisions of the act, for this would render the section
meaningless.”

Apparently this criticism is well founded, but that is because Sir James Stephen did not explain
his intention properly.

10
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

EXAMPLES FROM Literature ….

When Oliver Goldsmith published his poem “The Traveler”, Chamier asked him, what he
meant by his first line, “remote unfriended, melonchaly slow”.” He asked Goldsmith. “What do
you mean by slow, the last word in the first line? Do you mean tardiness of locomotion? And
Goldsmith answered Yes. Dr Johnson, who was hearing the conversation interrupted, “No sir,
you do not mean tardiness of locomotion, you mean that sluggishness of mind which comes
upon a man in solitude.”

Similarly, when Bernard Shaw wrote, The Perfect Wagnerite, an Interpretation of the
Nibellungen Ring Music Dramas, Wagner wrote to Shaw that that was not what he intended and
that Shaw has misrepresented him. Shaw answered- “You hush your mouth and stick to your
business of writing music dramas. That is your function. My function as a critic is one of
interpretation. You did not fully realize what you were saying, you were not fully aware of the
implication of your work. It is my business to tell the public, and to tell you what you really
meant.”

I have no intention of emulating these extraordinary men – Dr Johnson and George Bernard
Shaw, - but I am afraid Sir James Stephen has to submit to the indignity of an explanation by me.

The section starts by saying “facts not otherwise relevant….”. What are the facts which though
logically relevant are not legally relevant ? They are the facts coming under the two rules of
exclusion, relating to relevancy: (a) facts would would come under hearsay , and (b) facts which
would come under Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri Nocere Non Debet, which means a transaction
between two parties ought not to operate to the disadvantage of a third. Under (b) are usually
included (1) statements made behind the back of the person against whom they are sought to be
used as an evidence , (2) similar unconnected transactions, and (3) opinions of third parties.
Facts coming under the hearsay rule or under Res Inter Alios Acta, though logically relevant are
legally irrelevant. Everybody says, for example, that a particular officer is corrupt. It is logically
relevant for coming to the conclusion that the officer is corrupt,- in fact, lots of easy chair
agreements are given thus by people indulging in gossip and scandal, - but, in a court of law, it is
totally irrelevant. What section 11 says is this: facts, which come under these two rules are

11
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

otherwise irrelevant. They, would, however, become relevant, if they are inconsistent with the
fact in issue or make the existence of the fact in issue highly probable or improbable.

The entire passage by Sir James Stephen, quoted by me above, indicates that he was, anxious
that an Indian court should look into any fact however remotely connected with the matter in
controversy, choose out of them those facts, which make the existence of the facts in issue highly
probable or improbable, that is, which are relevant to the fact in issue, consider them all
together and come to a conclusion on facts. The section was deliberately left elastic to include
to include facts which form hearsay or Res Inter Alios Acta if they make the existence of the
facts in issue highly probable or improbable. The kind of hearsay where A says that he heard B
commit a crime , can never make the fact in issue that B committed the crime highly probable.
Such hearsay is naturally excluded, but if an item of hearsay evidence make the existence of the
fact in issue highly probable or improbable , it could be received as relevant evidence under the
section. This is what, Sir James Stephen , means by his explanation. A fact, before it can be
considered by a court, should be relevant under some section of the evidence act. If however,
that is, Res Inter Alios Acta or hearsay , and hence, not otherwise relevant, then it has also to
satisfy the additional test in section 11, namely, it should make the existence of the fact in issue
highly probable or improbable.

One objection may be raised to this interpretation of section 11. It may be said if section 11
includes hearsay also, what is the necessity for section 32? In fact, what is the necessity for
sections 7 and 9 also? The answer is , under sections 7 to 9 and 32, facts which are covered by
them are relevant and no question as to whether they are such as to make the existence of the
fact in issue highly probable arises. If the fact comes under those sections, it is automatically
received in evidence and considered whether or not it make the fact in issue highly probable or
improbable at the end of the trial. But if the fact is exclusively brought under section 11, then ,
before it is received as a relevant fact, it must also satisfy the test laid down in the section ,
namely, it should make the existence of a fact in issue highly probable or improbable.

WIDE SCOPE OF THE SECTION ….

12
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

The section is too wide in its import. It does not place any restriction upon the range of facts that
can be admitted as showing inconsistencies or probabilities. It leaves the whole thing at the
discretion of the court. Commenting upon this in Reg vs Parbhudas6, where to prove the offence
of forgery by the accused, evidence was offered of other forged documents found in his
possession, as this would make it probable that he committed the forgery, WEST, J., of the
Bombay High Court observed :

“ Section 11 of the evidence act is, no doubt, expressed in terms so extensive that any fact which,
by a chain of ratiocination, be brought into connexion with another , so as to have a bearing
upon a point in issue, may possibly be held to be relevant within its meaning. But the connexion
of human affairs are so infinitely various and so far reaching, that thus to take the section in its
widest admissible sense would be to complicate every trial with mass of collateral inquiries
limited only by the patience and the means of the parties. One of the objects of the law of
evidence is to restrict the investigation made by courts within the bounds prescribed by general
convenience, and this object would be completely frustrated by the admission, on all occasions,
of every circumstance on either side having some remote and conjectural probative force, the
precise amount of which might itself be ascertainable only by a long trial and a determination of
fresh collateral issues, growing up in endless succession as the inquiry proceeded. That such
extensive meaning was not in the mind of the legislature seems to be shown by several
indications in the act itself. The illustrations to section 11 do not go beyond familiar cases in the
English law of evidence. “

COMMENTS AND CONCLUSION ….

6
(1874) 11 BHC 90.

13
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

The author of the Act, Mr. JAMES FITZAMES STEPHEN , had no fear on account of the section.
He felt “That facts relevant under section 11 would, in most cases, be relevant under other
sections. The object of drawing the act in this manner was that the general ground on which facts
are relevant might be stated in so many and popular forms as possible , so that if a fact is
relevant , its relevancy may be easily ascertained.”7

Continuing further, the learned author observes:

“It may possibly be argued that the effect of the second paragraph of section 11 would be to
admit proof of such facts as these. It may, for instance, be said that A (not called as witness) was
heard to declare that he had seen B committing a crime. This makes it highly probable that B did
commit the crime. Therefore, A’s declaration is a relevant fact under section 11. This would not
be the intention of the section, as is shown by the elaborate provisions contained in section 32-
39, as to particular classes of statements , which are recorded as relevant facts either because of
the circumstances in which they are made invest them with importance or because no better
evidence can be got. The sorts of facts which the section was intended to include are facts which
either exclude or imply more or less distinctly the existence of the facts sought to be proved.”

This feeling of the learned author has proved to be generally true because not much use has
been made of the section.8

CASE LAWS ….

7
Introduction To The Indian Evidence Act, Page 76.
8
Satbir vs. Haryana, (1981) 4 SCC 508 : AIR 1981 SC 2074.

14
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

(1) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ….

          Material witnesses - Non examination - Adverse inference can be drawn.

          Alibi - Plea even if not proved, court shall not record a judgment of conviction unless
prosecution is found to have established its case.

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18 - Contraband -

Recovery - Independent witnesses - Recovery made at bus stand - No effort made to join
independent witnesses who were present at the spot - In the instant case no such attempt made -
Nobody else who had witnessed the occurrence was made a witness - Even their names and
addresses not taken - Conviction set aside.

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18 - Contraband -

Recovery of - Recovery of contraband in presence of independent witnesses assumes importance
- Seizure witnesses cannot be said to be independent in that way - In the instant case seizure
witnesses stated that their signatures were obtained on blank papers - All the departmental
witnesses not examined - Conviction set aside.

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18, 42 - Contraband -
Recovery of - Secret information - Secret information received that a person who had a bag
containing opium would come to Bus Stand - Full description of accused not given in secret
information - Raiding party reached the spot - A number of persons passed from that busy bus
stand - Accused arrested - No explanation how accused was identified and singled out - Accused
acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.

(2) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ….

Alibi - Plea of - Proof - Burden to prove plea of alibi is on accused which he can do by leading
evidence in the trial and not by filing some affidavits or statements purported to have been
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319 - Additional accused - When in the course of
the enquiry or trial, it appears to the court from the evidence that a person, not arrayed as an
accused, appears to have committed any offence for which that person could be tried together
with the accused, the court may proceed against that person - Court need not to be satisfied that
he has committed an offence - Court has a discretion not to proceed, as the expression used is
'may' and not 'shall'.

15
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

(3) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ….

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Death of wife by burning - Only husband was
present and none else - It is for husband to explain how deceased met her death - No explanation
- Conviction upheld.

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Dying declaration - Not in question and answer form -
Held, it was not necessary as the Police Official who recorded the statement had been asking
questions to which the deceased was giving replies.

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Two dying declarations - Recorded by two different
officers - One dying declaration in Marathi and the other in Hindi - Deceased and the Officers
who recorded the statement knew both the languages - Held, it makes no difference.

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Dying declaration - Conviction can be based on the sole
basis of dying declaration when court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary.

          Alibi - - No explanation as to why accused was absconding for about a month - Held,
accused not able to prove his alibi.

          Minor contradictions - Statement of witnesses recorded after six years of occurrence -

Minor contradictions rightly ignored.

(4) KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ….

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154 - Delay in registering complaint - Delay of 8
hours due to negligence of IO - Does not make the entire prosecution case false, if other
circumstances are proved by the prosecution.

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 154 - Hostile witness - Court can accept statement of a hostile
witness provided it inspires confidence in the mind of Court - This is based on the principles that
'Falsus in Uno Falsus in omnibus' is not applicable in criminal cases and as such Courts should
separate grain of truth from chaff of falsehood.

          Alibi - Plea of - It is for the accused to establish his plea of alibi - Burden of proof on
accused is not as strict as on the prosecution witnesses - It is by even preponderance of
probability that the accused could establish his presence or absence.

(5) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ….

 

Alibi - Plea of - No question asked in cross examination - Plea is only an afterthought.

16
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

          Related witness - When a witness holds a position of relationship favoring prosecution, it

is incumbent on the Court to exercise appropriate caution when appraising his evidence and to
examine its probative value with reference to the entire mosaic of acts appearing from the record.

          Sole eye witness - Conviction can be based on the testimony of sole eye witness provided
Court which hear such witness regard him as honest and truthful - Prudence, however, requires
that some corroboration should be sought from the prosecution evidence in support of the
testimony of a solitary witness particularly when such witness happens to be closely related to
the deceased and the accused are those against whom some motive or ill mind is suggested.

(6) GAUHATI HIGH COURT ….

          Alibi - Plea of - Can be accepted only when it is shown that it was impossible for the
accused to be present at the place where the crime was committed.

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154 - FIR - Non-mentioning of the names of all
accused persons in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution.

(7) DELHI HIGH COURT ….

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 311, 391, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section
7, 13 - Bribe - Additional evidence - Recording of - Accused alleged to have accepted bribe -
Defense witnesses did not turn up as they were not served - Evidence closed by defense - Plea of
alibi raised by accused - Plea not inquired by IO - Fit case for appellate court to issue directions
for recording of additional evidence.

(8) BOMBAY HIGH COURT ….

17
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113B - Dowry death -
Charge of murder and dowry death can be framed in respect of same offence - If charge u/s 302
is framed but no charge u/s 304-B is framed Court cannot presume that accused had committed
offence u/s 304-B as presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act could not be drawn.

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 498A - Proof of charge u/s 498-A - By itself does
not prove charge of murder u/s 302 IPC.

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313 - Plea of alibi - Denial u/s 313 Cr.P.C. cannot
be treated on the same footing as plea of alibi which is to be specifically raised in the form of
evidence by the accused.

          Criminal trial - Prosecution must establish its case on its own merits and not on the
weakness of the defense.

(9) KERALA HIGH COURT ….

          Criminal trial - Interested witness - Court has to sift the evidence to find truth after
excluding the exaggerations and embellishments.

          Criminal trial - Plea of alibi - Should be established by the person who is pleading it -
Strict proof of alibi is necessary and plea of alibi should be proved with absolute certainty
completely excluding the possibility of the accused at the time and place of occurrence.

          Criminal trial - Plea of alibi - Failure of defense to prove - Does not make the accused
liable for conviction unless prosecution is able to prove that he is guilty of the crime as alleged
beyond reasonable doubt.

(10) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ….

18
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

        Criminal trial - Alibi - A distance of 15/20 minutes' walk from the place of occurrence
cannot be said to be 'presence elsewhere' to establish a plea of alibi.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ….

19
 PROJECT SUBMITTED BY SHWETANK ….

 PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE ; DR. AVTAR SINGH; CENTRAL LAW

PUBLICATIONS.

 RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL; THE LAW OF EVIDENCE; WADHWA AND

COMPANY,NAGPUR.

 VEPA P. SARATHI ; THE LAW OF EVIDENCE; EASTERN BOOK COMPANY.

 ABHINAV MISHRA; INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT; UPKAR PUBLICATION.

 AN EXHAUSTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 BY S.K.

MALIK.

20