Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in murder case if accused takes the plea of alibi?

The evidence of the present matter shows that accused No. 1 was living in the room with the deceased where the murder took place. Accused No. 1 is an agriculturist. The evidence on the record does not show that accused has any relative at Alandi and there was any reason for him for going to Alandi and staying there for such a long time, for about six days. In ordinary course, a male member of family where there is only one adult male member does not leave station for days together. The male member stays at home in the night time and he leaves home in the day time for work. Though the Trial Court has held that explanation is given by accused No. 1 that he was out of station one day prior to the date of incident, the statement given by accused No. 1 under section 313 of Cr.P.C. shows that accused No. 1 contended that he had left home three days prior to the date of incident. In the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused No. 1 has further contended that he returned to his village Warud Kazi on 4.12.2004 and he had learnt first time on 3.12.2004 about the incident. Thus, he admits that he was able to keep contact with his family if he was at Alandi and he admits that he was not at station up to 4.12.2004. In view of provision of section 114 of Evidence Act, it was necessary for accused No. 1 to give particulars as to where he was living in Alandi for the period given by him, for about six days. He could have examined witnesses and he could have produced some record if such record was created to create a probability that on the night between 1.12.2004 and 2.12.2004 he was not at Warud Kazi. That is not done by accused No. 1. {Para 19}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2006

Decided On: 18.01.2018

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramnath

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.V. Nalawade and Sunil K. Kotwal, JJ.

Author: T.V. Nalawade, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0078/2018,2018 ALL MR (CRI) 3825.

Print Page

No Inflexible Rule That Alibi Can Be Proved Only In Trial : Supreme Court Quashes S. 498A IPC Case Against BSF Personnel

 In these circumstances, continuing a full

sessions trial against the appellant alone,

while his co-accused stand acquitted on the

self-same evidence, would not further the

cause of justice but would subject the

appellant to the ordeal and stigma of a criminal

trial whose substratum has already collapsed.

The High Court, in the impugned judgment,

proceeded on the premise that the appellant's

reliance on the service certificate was a bare

plea of alibi of the kind considered in Rajendra

Singh (supra), and declined to examine

corroborating circumstances. This, in the

considered view of this Court, constituted a

failure to appreciate unimpeachable material

bearing directly on the question of abuse of

process, and calls for interference. {Para 34}

35. In light of the foregoing facts and

circumstances, and the analysis of the legal

precedents referred to above, this Court is of

the view that the four-steps as laid down in the

case of Rajiv Thapar (supra) are satisfied in

the present case. The service certificate is not

disputed as a document, its issuing authority

is not questioned, nor are its contents

disputed. Where the unimpeached

documentary record and the result of a

connected trial on identical evidence, taken

together, demonstrate that the continuation of

the prosecution against the appellant would be

a legal exercise in futility, the High Court, and

now this Court, would be failing in their duty

if they permitted the criminal process to

continue merely because a technical prima

facie case can be spelt out from the bare

averments of the F.I.R. The categories

identified in Bhajan Lal (supra) are

illustrative and not exhaustive, and the

present case falls squarely within the rationale

of categories 1, 3 and 6 concerning inherent

improbability of the allegations and abuse of

the process of the court.

36. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is

satisfied that the continuation of criminal

proceedings against the appellant amounts to

an abuse of the process of the court and

requires to be quashed qua the appellant

alone.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.2939 OF 2026)

RAHUL  Vs  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 825

Print Page

Under which circumstances the court can release accused on bail relying on metadata of photo submitted by him by taking the plea of alibi?

 It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is suffering in confinement on false pretext. Counsel for the applicant referred the letter dated 28.02.2020 written by Station House Officer, Police Station Nai Saraye, District Ashoknagar addressed to Trial Court and report of Cyber Forensic Lab, Bhopal containing digital forensic examination report dated 12.12.2019 and subsequent report filed by the Cyber Forensic Lab, Bhopal indicates that photograph submitted by the applicant was in support of his innocence on the basis of plea of alibi. From perusal of Metadata of photograph, it is prima facie clear that the present applicant was present at Bakaspur Village Khajuri, Tahsil Badarwas, District Ashoknagar on 02.04.2019 at about 1.34 pm and time of incident is around 1.30 pm - 2.00 pm on the same day at Village Ranga, Tahsil Nai Saraye, District Ashoknagar. The distance of place of incident is around 60 kms.- 70 kms. from the place where applicant was present at 1.34 pm. Such distance can only be covered by the applicant in not less than one hour at least. Therefore, Metadata of photo and report indicate that he was present at that time at a place 60 kms.-70 kms. away from the place of incident and no tampering has been made in photograph.

According to applicant, benefit of doubt so far as grant of bail is concerned be given to him because it is the case of over implication. Applicant has been arrayed as accused on false pretext. He does not bear any criminal record. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. 

This is the case mainly in respect of digital forensic evidence and Metadata of any photograph is a big tool in the hands of forensic experts to reach to the truth about the exact nature of incident. Trial Courts are expected to scrutinize the said scientific tool with care and deep study so that forensic examination of evidence can be done to its higher standards. Metadata can be very useful especially in cases where plea of alibi is taken by the parties or accused in particular. Photo, Metadata details and report of Digital Forensic Expert should carry due certification as per Evidence Act and other relevant provisions.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Surendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2020.

M Cr. C No. 15796/2020

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

Print Page

What is basic concept of plea of alibi? Explain this concept with examples

The concept of the plea of alibi is an important defense mechanism in criminal law, and it is articulated in the S 9 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam or S 11 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Here’s a detailed explanation along with examples:

Definition and Legal Basis

Alibi: The term "alibi" is derived from Latin, meaning "elsewhere." A plea of alibi is a defense used by an accused person claiming that they were at a different location at the time the alleged offense was committed, making it impossible for them to be the perpetrator.

Print Page

Whether the court should accept plea of Alibi taken by accused if at the time of incident he was at a short distance from spot of offence?

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.

The evidence of the defence witnesses, accepting it at its face value, is consistent with the appellant's presence at the Naini factory at 8-30 A.M. and at the scene of offence at 9.00 A.M. So short is the distance between the two points. The 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, Pappoo 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 P.M. 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.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 1979

Decided On: 11.02.1981

Dudh Nath Pandey  Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. and A.N. Sen, J.

Author: Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.

Citation: AIR 1981 SC 911,(1981)2SCC 166,MANU/SC/0137/1981.

Print Page

Whether accused can rely on Biometric Attendance Record to prove the plea of alibi at the time of framing of charge?

The petitioner has raised a plea of alibi contending that at the time of the incident he was not present at the spot and was present in his office. In this regard he has placed reliance on his Biometric Attendance Record. No doubt, the Biometric Attendance Record shows that the petitioner left his office at 5:02 p.m. but this in itself is not a ground for discharge of the petitioner as there is an injured eye witness who has assigned specific role to him. During the course of the arguments, the Ld. APP has also argued that at this stage, one cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner could have left his office and then again came back to his office and in order to create alibi marked his biometric attendance subsequently. In my opinion, this fact needs evidence and at this stage, no finding accepting the plea of alibi can be given in favour of the petitioner as the onus to prove the alibi is upon him which he will have to prove during the trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. Rev. P. 801/2019 and Crl. M.A. 32563/2019

Decided On: 27.05.2020

 Rajinder Vs.  State and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

Print Page

When accused has failed to prove plea of alibi on ground that at that time he was taking medical treatment?

D.W.1 Hirdaya Nand Manjhi has stated in his evidence that
he is posted as Dresser at Primary Health Centre, Jalalpur since 1998. On
22.01.2000, Dr. Jagdev Mandal (D.W.4) examined Shiv Dayal Singh
(appellant), whose name is at O.P.D. No.7106 as patient No.14. The entry
was made by Dr. Jagdev Mandal (D.W.4) in his presence and he proved the
O.P.D. Entry No.7106 as Ext.1. He also proved the O.P.D. prescription as
Ext.B and certificate of Dr. Jagdev Mandal as Ext.C. In cross examination,
he stated that he did not write anything in the O.P.D. Register and there is no
signature of the doctor in the O.P.D. Register.
 D.W.4 Dr. Jagdev Mandal has stated in his evidence that on
22.01.2000, he was Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Jalalpur, and
on that day, he examined patient Shiv Dayal Singh, aged about 40 years, son
of Late Kali Singh of village-Nandanpur, P.S. Taraiya, District-Saran as
O.P.D. patient and he was admitted and discharged on 25.01.2000 from the
hospital. At that time, Hirdiya Nand Manjhi (D.W.1) was Dresser in the
hospital. He further stated that the certificate issued by him is in his
handwriting and signature, which is already marked as Ext.C. In cross
examination, he has stated that on 22.01.2000, 14 patients were examined and
Shiv Dayal Singh was last patient. Primary Health Center, Jalalpur is of six
bed hospital and on 22.01.2000, only Shiv Dayal Singh was admitted for
treatment. He further stated that in Ext.B, which is discharge slip, there is no
date of discharge. He also stated that he did not know how many medicines
were provided to the patient Shiv Dayal Singh by the hospital and how many
medicines were purchased by him from the market.
From the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 4, it is apparent that Ext.A,
which is entry No.7106 of O.P.D. Register relating to check up of Shiv Dayal
Singh on 22.01.2000 does not bear the signature of the doctor against the 
entry of patient no.14 on that date and the discharge slip (Ext.B) relating to
patient Shiv Dayal Singh also does not bear the date of discharge. No bed
head ticket is brought on record regarding the admission and treatment of Shiv
Dayal Singh (appellant) in the hospital in between 22.01.2000 and 25.01.2000
as indoor patient. As such, the plea of alibi of Shiv Dayal Singh(appellant)
that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 23.01.2000, he was indoor patient at
Primary Health Centre, Jalalpur, appears to be untrustworthy.
 So far as the third submission as made on behalf of the appellant
Shiv Dayal Singh about his alibi is concerned, while D.W.1 Hirdaya Nand
Manjhi and D.W.4 Jagdev Mandal, who respectively are said to be posted as
Dresser and Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Jalalpur, have stated
that the appellant Shiv Dayal Singh was examined on 22.01.2000 by entering
his name in O.P.D. Register at serial no.7106 as last patient on 22.01.2000 and
he was admitted for treatment and discharged on 25.01.2000. But D.W.1
Hridaya Nand Manjhi has stated that in entry at serial no.7106 in the O.P.D.
Register, the name of the appellant Shiv Dayal Singh is detailed but against
the entry, the column of signature of the doctor is blank. Ext.D, which is
Discharge Certificate issued by the Dr. Jagdev Mandal (D.W.1) also does not
bear the date of discharge which is itself admitted by D.W.4 Dr. Jagdev
Mandal. While the appellant Shiv Dayal Singh is said to be admitted at
Primary Health Center, Jalalpur on 22.01.2000 and discharged after treatment
on 25.01.2000 but no Bed Head Ticket is brought on the record. As such, I
find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
Shiv Dayal Singh that he was under treatment at Primary Health Centre,
Jalalpur, on 23.01.2000 and discharged from there on 25.01.2000.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.683 of 2010

Shiv Dayal Singh V State of Bihar

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH
and
 MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

Date: 7 -09-2016
Citation: 2016 CRLJ 433 Pat

Print Page

Whether plea of ailbi is required to be proved after prosecution has proved its case?

The word alibi means “elsewhere”. The plea of alibi is
not one of the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV of
IPC. It is a rule of evidence recognized under Section 11 of
the Evidence Act. However, plea of alibi taken by the defence
is required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its
case against the accused. In the present case said condition
is fulfilled.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2099 OF 2008
Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab 
Dated:January 06, 2016.

Print Page

Whether plea of alibi is required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its case?

The word alibi means “elsewhere”. The plea of alibi is
not one of the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV of
IPC. It is a rule of evidence recognized under Section 11 of
the Evidence Act. However, plea of alibi taken by the defence
is required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its
case against the accused. In the present case said condition
is fulfilled.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2099 OF 2008
Darshan Singh 
V
State of Punjab
Dated:January 06, 2016.
Citation:(2016) 3 SCC 37,2016 SCCONLINESC 7

Print Page

Whether plea of alibi is to be proved strictly?

That apart, the law
clearly stipulates how a plea of alibi is to be established. In
this context, we may profitably reproduce a few passages from
Binay Kumar Singh V. State of Bihar  (1997) 1 SCC 283
“22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an
exception (special or general) envisaged in the
Indian Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule
of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence
Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact
in issue are relevant. Illustration (a) given under the
provision is worth reproducing in this context:
“The question is whether A committed a crime
at Calcutta on a certain date; the fact that on
that date, A was at Lahore is relevant.”

23. The Latin word alibi means “elsewhere” and
that word is used for convenience when an accused
takes recourse to a defence line that when the
occurrence took place he was so far away from the
place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable
that he would have participated in the crime. It is a
basic law that in a criminal case, in which the
accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury
to another person, the burden is on the prosecution
to prove that the accused was present at the scene
and has participated in the crime. The burden
would not be lessened by the mere fact that the
accused has adopted the defence of alibi. The plea
of the accused in such cases need be considered
only when the burden has been discharged by the
prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution
succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent
on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to
prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the
possibility of his presence at the place of
occurrence. When the presence of the accused at
the scene of occurrence has been established
satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable
evidence, normally the court would be slow to
believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he
was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But
if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a
quality and of such a standard that the court may
entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his
presence at the scene when the occurrence took
place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to
the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that
purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid
down that, in such circumstances, the burden on
the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore,
that strict proof is required for establishing the plea
of alibi.
[Emphasis supplied]



Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2047 OF 2008
Vutukuru Lakshmaiah 
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh .
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2052 OF 2008
Citation; 2015(2) crimes 349 SC
Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page