The story revolves around twelve male members of a jury who have gathered together

in room to deliberate on charges of murder against a young boy accused of killing his father.
All the jury members, except one – Juror 8, are convinced that the boy is guilty of the crime.
The accused took the defence of alibi; Juror 4 doubts the boy's alibi of being at the movies,
because he could not recall it in much detail.

PLEA OF ALIBI:

The term ‘Alibi’ is a Latin word which means ‘elsewhere’ or ‘somewhere else’. In
criminal proceedings alibi is used as a form of defence by the accused against the
commission of an alleged offence. When an accused makes a plea of alibi in a court he or she
attempts to prove that he or she was in some other place at the time the alleged offence was
committed. In general, a plea of alibi implies that the accused was physically not present at
the scene and time of the commission of an offence due to the reason that he was present
somewhere else.

DEFINITION:

Alibi is a defence to a criminal charge to the effect that the accused was elsewhere
than at the scene of the alleged crime.1

Alibi is different from all other defences; it is based upon the premise that the
defendant is truly innocent.2

ESSENTIALS OF PLEA OF ALIBI:

 The person making the plea of alibi must be an accused in that offence.

 Alibi is a plea of defence (in respect of innocence of accused) by which the accused
suggests to the court that he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the
alleged offence.

 The plea must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it was impossible for the
accused to be physically present at the scene of the offence.

 The plea must be backed by evidence supporting the claim of the accused.

1
Duhaime’s Law Dictionary
2
The Criminal Law Deskbook of Criminal Procedure
WHO MAY TAKE THE PLEA OF ALIBI?

As a general rule, a person taking a plea of alibi must be accused of an alleged offence. The
accused must plead his presence elsewhere at the time of the commission of the alleged
offence. The purpose of the plea of alibi is not to establish a defence nor to prove anything,
but merely to raise a doubt of the accuser’s presence or absence at the scene of the crime. As
a good defence, if a plea of alibi is made at the initial stage accompanied by strong evidence
which is independent and impartial suggesting the same, it has the potential to call for an
acquittal or discharge of the accused.

PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE PLEA OF ALIBI:

Section11: “When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant: facts otherwise not 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 all relevant fact highly probable or improbable.”3

Further, as the Burden of proof as to 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.4

1. Facts inconsistent with fact in issue or relevant fact:

One fact is inconsistent with the other when it cannot co-exist with the other. Under this
clause facts are relevant only because they cannot co-exist with fact in issue or relevant fact.
Above example shows that A is illiterate. A cannot write a defamatory letter to B. These two
facts cannot co-exists. “The usual theory of essential inconsistency is that a certain fact
cannot co-exist with the doing of the act in question, and, therefore, that if that fact is true of
a person of whom the fact is alleged, it is impossible that he should have done the act.”

Under the clause there are at least six classes of cases which show inconsistency, viz.;

3
Section 11 of Indian Evidence act, 1872
4
Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Alibi:

Alibi is a Latin word, which means elsewhere. It is used when the accused takes the plea that
when the occurrence took place he was elsewhere. In such a situation the prosecution has to
discharge the burden satisfactorily. Once the prosecution is successful in discharging the
burden it is incumbent on the accused who takes the place of alibi to prove it with absolute
certainly. An alibi is not an exception envisaged in the IPC or any other law. It is a rule of
evidence recognized by Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts inconsistent with fact in
issue are relevant

Illustration (a): However it cannot be the sole link or sole circumstance to bare conviction.
When one fact is necessary to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, but strikingly absent
in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution case certainly will fail. Because, an
alibi the relevancy of which is totally inconsistence with hypothesis that the accused had
committed an offence.

CASE LAWS:

Lakhan Singh @ Pappu vs The State of NCT of Delhi5

In this case the court held that, the plea of alibi cannot be equated with a plea of self-
defence and ought to be taken at the first instance and not belatedly at the stage of defence
evidence. In any case, the appellant/accused gives no reason or explanations for not taking
this plea of alibi at the earliest opportunity.

Binay Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar6

In this case the court opined that ,we must bear in mind that alibi, not an exception (special or
general) envisaged in the Indian Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence
recognized in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in
issue are relevant.

5
Delhi HC Crl Appeal No. 166/1999
6
(1997) 1 SCC 283
Sahabuddin & Anr vs the State of Assam, 7

The principal in this case is that, once the court disbelieves the plea of alibi and the
accused does not give any explanation in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the Court is
entitled to draw an adverse inference against the accused. At this stage, we may refer to the
judgment of this Court in the case of Jitender Kumar v State of Haryana [(2012) 6 SSC
2014], where the Court while disbelieving the plea had drawn an adverse inference and said
that this fact would support the case of the prosecution.

7
Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 2010