Ajay Pratap Singh @ Doctor v. Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite
Case Details
Acts & Sections
7. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present revision has been filed taking the ground of plea of alibi.
8. In so far as the plea of 'alibi' is concerned, it is a settled law that it is a plea of defence. In Binay Kumar Singh v.State of Bihar [(1997) 1 SCC 4 CRLR No. 1326 of 2025 283], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "23. The Latin word alibi means "elsewhere" and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person; (i) the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. (ii) The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi. (iii) The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. (iv) But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. (v) When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. (vi) But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 166 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 379]; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple
7. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present revision has been filed taking the ground of plea of alibi.
8. In so far as the plea of 'alibi' is concerned, it is a settled law that it is a plea of defence. In Binay Kumar Singh v.State of Bihar [(1997) 1 SCC 4 CRLR No. 1326 of 2025 283], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "23. The Latin word alibi means "elsewhere" and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person; (i) the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. (ii) The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi. (iii) The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. (iv) But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. (v) When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. (vi) But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 166 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 379]; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple