Dark Mode
Image
Logo
Supreme Court: Alibi Defense Valid Only When 'Elsewhere' Is Distant From Crime Scene

Supreme Court: Alibi Defense Valid Only When 'Elsewhere' Is Distant From Crime Scene

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the plea of alibi can only be invoked if the "elsewhere place" is significantly distant from the location of the incident, making it highly improbable or impossible for the accused to be present at the crime scene. This observation was made in a Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), punishable under Sections 302, 201, and 498A IPC. The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra stated, "The plea of alibi, in the light of the decision in Binay Kumar Singh’s case (supra), can be applied only if the ‘elsewhere place’ is far away from the place of occurrence so that it was extremely improbable or impossible for the person concerned to reach the place of occurrence and to participate in the crime on the relevant date and time of occurrence. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the said contention was rightly rejected by the Courts below."

 
Brief Facts of the Case
According to the prosecution, the appellant and the deceased were married in 2006. In 2012, an incident at the appellant’s residence, which was the matrimonial home of the deceased, led to her death and the appellant's subsequent conviction. The deceased’s paternal home was located approximately 50 meters from her matrimonial home. The appellant was allegedly addicted to gambling and subjected the deceased to physical and mental abuse, including mortgaging her jewelry to finance his gambling habits. The deceased reportedly shared her suffering with her sister.
 
On the day of the incident, the deceased informed her sister that she had been physically assaulted by the appellant. Later, the appellant visited the deceased’s parental home and claimed that his wife had hanged herself. Upon returning to the matrimonial home, her parents found the deceased in a kneeling position on the bed, with a dupatta tied around her neck and secured to a piece of wood near the ceiling fan. An FIR was subsequently registered, and the Trial Court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000. The High Court upheld this conviction, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
 
Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act serves as an exception to the general rule established in Section 101, which places the burden of proof on the party asserting a fact. However, the Court clarified that Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden of proof.
 
The Court observed, “If some occurrence happened inside a residence where the accused is supposed to be, he is bound to offer his version as to how the occurrence had taken place.” It was noted that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated, and it remained undisputed, that the appellant and the deceased resided at the crime scene, which was the appellant’s house. Upon the wife’s death, the appellant was obligated to provide an explanation regarding the circumstances leading to her demise. Although Section 106 does not shift the burden of proving the offence from the prosecution to the accused, an absence of any satisfactory explanation from the appellant, coupled with other incriminating evidence, led to the inference that he was involved in the crime.
 
The Court further highlighted that the testimony of PW-8 (Aarti), who stated that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture by the appellant, was unchallenged during cross-examination. Both the Trial Court and the High Court noted that no effort was made during cross-examination to discredit her testimony, rendering her evidence credible and trustworthy.
 
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had sufficiently established the guilt of the appellant, and his failure to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the occurrence further reinforced his culpability. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
 
 
 
Cause Title: Ashok Verma v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2024 INSC 1011
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 815/2022
Date: December-19-2024
Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 
 
 
 
[Read/Download order]
 
 
 
 
 

Comment / Reply From