“Rule of Alibi” under Indian Evidence Act
- Section 11 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) is called a ‘residuary’ section dealing with relevancy of fact.
- Section 11 is based upon the “principle of alibi”.[1](UKJ-2008/MPJ-2019).
- Inconsistent Facts and Probabilities: Section 11 talks about relevancy of those facts which are not themselves independently relevant. These facts become relevant only by virtue of the fact that they are either (i) inconsistent with the facts in issue or any relevant fact or
(ii) they make the existence of a fact in issue or relevant fact either highly probable or improbable.
- Essentials of Section 11: Section 11 provides that when facts not otherwise relevant become relevant in following cases—
(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.
- Scope of Section 11: Section 11 is having wide 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.
- R M Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra (1973:SC) is a leading case on tape-recorded statement and it was held that a tape-recorded statement is relevant under Section 11 to corroborate the statement of a person.
- Illustrations:
- The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. Here, 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. (UPAPO-2007)
- 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.
[1] . When facts not otherwise relevant, relevant? What is principle of alibi. Illustrate your answer. (UPJ-1984)
__________________________________________________________________
Prepared by Team Legal Mines. The LegalMines have copyright over the contents and the style.
