Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

Supreme Court of India has held that a plea of alibi cannot come to rescue of an accused unless it is supported by corroborative evidence.

"We find that for the plea of alibi to be established, something other than a mere ocular statement ought to have been present," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol has said.

With this view, the apex court dismissed an appeal filed by Kamal Prasad, Shersingh and Bhavdas against their conviction for killing Chetram and his son Kapildeo on April 17, 1988.

It rejected a plea of alibi taken by the appellants by producing two defence witnesses. "In our considered view, both these defence witnesses do not conclusively establish the plea of alibi, based on the principle of preponderance of probability as their statements stand unsupported by any other corroborative evidence," the bench said.

The court relied upon statements by three prosecution witnesses who deposed that the appellant Kamal threw bomb at Chetram and two others Shersingh and Bhavdas hit the deceased with lathis and shovels.

With regard to the plea of alibi, the bench pointed out the principle as appreciated by various decision of the Supreme Court as follows: 

1. It is not part of the General Exceptions under the IPC and is instead a rule of evidence under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. This plea being taken does not lessen the burden of the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene of the crime and had participated therein.
3. Such plea is only to be considered subsequent to the prosecution having discharged, satisfactorily, its burden.
4. The burden to establish the plea is on the person taking such a plea. The same must be achieved by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence.
5. It is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the spot of the crime. In other words, a standard of ‘strict scrutiny’ is required when such a plea is taken.

On the case at hand, the bench said, "The prosecution has relied on the statement of eyewitnesses to establish its case against the convict-appellants leading to the unrefuted conclusion that convict-appellants were present on the spot of the crime and had indeed caused injuries unto the deceased as also PW-3 with Lathis and Tabbal on various and vital parts of their bodies."

"We find them to be coherent on material facts such as the presence of the accused on the spot of the crime; the death of Chetram; a blast having taken place; and the accused being the assailants," the bench added.

Among others, the appellants also contended deceased being a history-sheeter, with numerous cases, there was an equal probability of someone other than them having eliminated him.

The court, however, said the deceased Chetram was a historysheeter and had scores of criminal cases pending against him or cases in which he was involved. However, such fact is unsubstantiated on record for no detail whatsoever stands provided in respect of such cases involving the deceased, it said.

"Be that as it may, simply because the deceased had a chequered past which constituted several run-ins with the law, Courts cannot give benefit thereof, particularly when such claims are bald assertions, to those accused of committing such a person’s murder. And in any event, such a plea is merely presumptuous," the bench said.

Court concluded the charges levied against the accused, i.e., under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, IPC, and Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, and the sentence corresponding thereto as awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, did not warrant interference of this court. 

"The sentences awarded are in no manner excessive or disproportionate to the crimes for which the convict-appellants stand convicted," the bench said while dismissing the appeal and directing the appellants to surrender.