ABSTRACT:
According to Duhaime’s Law,
Plea of alibi is the defense to a criminal charge to the effect that the accused was elsewhere that at the scene of the alleged crime. The term ‘Alibi’ is a Latin term which implies ‘elsewhere’ or ‘somewhere else. Alibi is used as a defense in criminal proceedings by the accused against the commission of the alleged offense. The accused makes this plea in the court so that he or she can prove his or her innocence that at the commission of the offense, he or she was in some other place. In general, a plea of alibi implies that the accused was not physically present during the commission of the offense; he was elsewhere or somewhere else. As a general rule, it is the accused of the alleged offense who can take the plea of alibi. It must be pleaded by the accused that he or she was not physically present at the time of the commission of the alleged offense.
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.
Section 103 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides for Burden of proof as to a particular fact which 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.
For example, the question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, he was in New Delhi is relevant.
When the accused took the plea of alibi the burden of proof lies on him under section 103 of this Act. If a person is charged with murder, he is to prove that he was elsewhere. The plea of alibi has to be taken at the earliest opportunity and it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court.
FACTS:
1) A college-going boy named Vijay Bhan Kishore was shot dead by the appellant who was convicted for the offense under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by additional Sessions Judge and was sentenced to death.
2) Aforementioned conviction was confirmed by the Allahabad High Court and hence the appellant had filed an appeal by special leave to the supreme court. Vijay Bhan Kishore was the son of an advocate called Brij Bhan Kishore who died around 1967 leaving behind a widow with 3 daughters and a deceased. The youngest of the three daughters Ranjana Kishore was a teacher in St. Anthony Convent School.
3) The appellant Dudh Nath Pandey was a motor-car driver by occupation who lived as a tenant in a bungalow belonging to the deceased’s family. The appellant developed a fancy for Ranjana, the overtures made by the appellant to Ranjana created resentment in her family and therefore the appellant was turned out of the outhouse by the deceased.
4) Thereafter, the appellant applied to the city Magistrate, Allahabad, asking for the custody of Ranjana, alleging that she was his lawfully wedded wife. That applicated was dismissed by the learned Magistrate after recording a statement of Ranjana, in which she denied that she was married to the appellant.
5) The appellant thereafter filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the Allahabad High Court alleging that Ranjana was detained unlawfully by the members of her family Ranjana again denied the aforesaid allegation and hence accordingly the Habeas Corpus petition was dismissed by the High Court.
6) Thereafter, the appellant came at the Bungalow of the deceased and is alleged to have threatened to kill the deceased if he dared oppose his marriage with Ranjana as a result the deceased used to escort Ranjana to school every morning, where she was teaching.
7) On the next day the deceased took Ranjana to her school on his scooter as usual Ranjana used to go to the school 30-40 mins earlier, her classes used to begin at 9:30 am. After dropping Ranjana at school the deceased started back home on his scooter.
8) While he was passing by the Hathi Children’s Park, the appellant is alleged to fire at him with the country-made pistol, leaving him dead
9) The appellant was arrested at about 2:30 pm while he was standing near a pan shop in Infront of the industry where he used to work (Indian Telephone Industry, Miami)
WITNESS STATEMENT OF PROSECUTION
1) This incident is claimed to have been witnessed by Harish Chandra, a domestic servant of the deceased’s family, and by Harish Chandra’s friend Ashok Kumar.
2) The motive for the murder was proved when Ranjana Kishore was examined for showing that the deceased had taken him to school on his scooter and that she was informed by 2 eyewitnesses of the murder.
3) To prove the arrest of the appellant and recovery of the loaded pistol Ram Kishore was examined, the nature of the injury suffered by the deceased was shown through the examination by Doctor G.S. Saxena.
4)While Budul Rai who was an expert in Ballistic stated that the empty cartridge shell which was lying at the scene of the offense was fired from the particular pistol. The pistol is stated to have been recovered at the instance of the appellant.
ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENSE
1) The appellant stated in his defense that he used to live in the house of the deceased as the guest of the family and not as a tenant and Ranjana got intimate with him during that period. Ranjana told him that there was a danger to his life so he left the house.
2) The Murder of the deceased, according to the appellant, was engineered by Dr. K.P Saxena, the marital uncle of the deceased. The appellant denied his hand in the murder.
3) The appellant stated that he had no reason to do any sort of crime because the deceased’s mother and other members of the family desired that he should marry Ranjana.
WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE DEFENSE
1) The appellant examined five witnesses to prove his alibi, he contends that he was on duty at his workplace that is Indian Telephonic Industries, right from 8:30 AM on the date of the incident and that he was arrested from inside the factory at 2:30 PM while on duty.
2) The appellant’s colleagues (Defense Witness) at the Indian Telephone Industries made giving evidence suggesting that he was at his desk or about the time when the murder took place and further, that he was arrested within the factory.
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT:
1) The Doctrine of Alibi was explained by the Supreme Court
“… The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offense because of his presence at another place. Therefore, the plea can 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.”
The plea of alibi is relevant and admissible under section 11 of the Evidence Act, which lays done as under:
Section 11 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- 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. Illustrations
(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.
(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.
2) In observation of Plea of Alibi
The court said that the defense witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution.
The Court stated that-
“The evidence of the defense witness, accepting it as its face value, inconsistent with the appellant’s presence at the Naini factory at 8:30 AM and the scene of offense at 9:00 AM. So short is the distance between the two points. Workers punch their cards when they enter the factory, but when they leave the factory, they do not have to punch the time of their exit. The appellant, in all probability, went to the factory at the appointed hour, left it immediately, and went in search of his prey. He knew when precisely; the deceased would return after dropping Ranjana at the school. The appellant appears to have attempted to go back to his work but that involved the risk of the time of his re-entry being punched again. That is how he was arrested at about 2:30 PM, while he was loitering near the pan-shop in front of the factory. There is no truth in the claim that he was arrested from inside the factory.”
3)The Supreme Court relies upon the testimony of eye witness Harish Chandra and Ashok Kumar,
The court said that-
“The evidence of Ranjana shows beyond the manner of doubt that Harish Chandra and Ashok Kumar broke to her the news of her brother’s murder, while she was in the school. The events after the murder happened in such quick succession that there was no time for anyone to contrive and confabulate. Within ten minutes of the occurrence, Ranjana was informed of the incident by the two eye-witnesses and within a few moments thereafter she went to the scene of the tragedy. Her F.I.R. was recorded at the police station at 9.45 a.m. A fact of preponderating importance is that the story which Ranjana disclosed in the F.I.R. is precisely the same as the witnesses, including herself, narrated in the Court. The F.I.R. is a brief document of a page and a half. But, remarkably, it mentions
(1) that the appellant wanted to marry Ranjana and was harassing her towards that end; (
(2) that there was a quarrel between the Appellant and the Deceased the previous evening, in which the former gave a threat of life to the latter;
(3) that Ranjana left for the school on the day of occurrence at 8.45 a.m. and
(4) that soon thereafter, Harish Chandra and Ashok Kumar met her at the school and conveyed to her that they had gone to see the Hathi Park when, while Deceased was passing along the road, the Appellant fired a shot at him.
We consider it beyond the normal range of human propensities that Ranjana could have built up the whole story within three-quarters of an hour which intervened between the time that she learned of her brother’s murder and the lodging by her of the F.I.R. She could not have taken the risk of creating a false witness by placing Ashok Kumar, who normally resided in Kanpur, alongside Harish Chandra. With the death of her brother, her own house was left without a male member. At home were an ailing mother and two other sisters, more or less of her age. There was no one to advise her upon the hatching of a conspiracy to involve the appellant and she could not have been in a proper frame of mind to do anything of the kind on her own. Her inexperience of life, the promptness with which she gave the F.I.R., and the wealth of details she mentioned therein afford an assurance that the story of the eye-witnesses is true in so far as it goes. Shri Kohli’s submission that Ranjana’s F.I.R. is ante-timed and must have been recorded late in the evening leaves us cold.”
That settles the issue of guilt. We agree with the view of the High Court and the Sessions Court and uphold the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code
