Burden Of Proof To Establish Plea Of Alibi On Accused Is Heavy: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the burden of establishing the plea of alibi on accused is heavy.

The plea of alibi in fact is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh noted.

Pappu Tiwari, Sanjay Ram, Uday Pal, Ajay Pal, Pintu Tiwari and Law Tiwari were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court of Jharkhand vide a common judgment affirmed the judgment of conviction of the trial court against all the six convicts. In pursuance of an inquiry conducted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the aspect of juvenility, the High Court opined that since Pintu Tiwari was a minor on the date of the incident and had already remained in jail for more than three years, no further order of detention could be passed in view of the provisions of Sections 15 & 16 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Sanjay Ram and Uday Pal accepted the High Court judgment. The other three convicts filed appeals.

Law Tiwari, in appeal, raised the plea of alibi. The occurrence was of 26.01.2000 and the defence was that the leg of Law Tiwari was fractured on 24.01.2000. Since on the date of the occurrence his leg was fractured, it was not possible for Law Tiwari to have taken part in the crime and he was falsely implicated in the case, it was contended. Two defence witnesses were examined to prove this plea.

The bench, in this regard, noted the observations made in Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2015) 4 SCC 749 and Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204. The burden was on Law Tiwari to establish the plea of alibi which he failed to discharge, the court observed. 

"It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that the burden was on Law Tiwari to establish the plea of alibi, which he failed to discharge. It was not a case where opportunity was not granted to him. In fact, two witnesses were produced in defence by Law Tiwari and two court witnesses were also summoned. However, the relevant evidence was not led.", the bench said while dismissing the appeal.

Click here to Read the Judgment

Click here to Download Judgment