State whether and why the evidence sought to be adduced in the circumstances given below is relevant or not? M, accused of murdering A…wants to lead evidence that he was at Guntur on that day?

Question: State whether and why the evidence sought to be adduced in the circumstances given below is relevant or not? M, accused of murdering A at Adilabad on 26-02-1987, wants to lead evidence that he was at Guntur on that day? [A.P.J.S. 1989]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [State whether and why the evidence sought to be adduced in the circumstances given below is relevant or not? M, accused of murdering A at Adilabad on 26-02-1987, wants to lead evidence that he was at Guntur on that day?]

Answer

There are certain facts that cannot be said to have co-existed with another fact. If one fact is proved to be true for a person, another fact that cannot co-exist with the fact so proved automatically stands disproved. This is the principle behind the concept of alibi according to which if the accused is proved to have been present at a different place at the same time when the offence was committed, it is concluded that the person was not physically present during the commission of the offence.

A plea of alibi must be established with absolute certainty. In a case where it was proved that the person was not physically present at the place where the act was alleged to have been committed but was present only a few miles away from such place, the plea of alibi was not allowed held by Hon’ble SC in State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao [AIR 1984 SC 63] Where the accused claimed that he was present at a different place when the offence was committed but failed to provide proof of the distance between the two places, the plea of alibi was not allowed.

In cases of circumstantial evidence, a false plea of alibi can be used as a link in the chain of circumstances. However, it cannot be the sole incriminating circumstance. Plea of alibi is required to be proved only after the prosecution has sufficiently established its case against the accused.

In the case of Nirmal Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana [2019], the court held that Alibi is a double-edged weapon. It means that if the accused fails to prove that he was alibi when the crime was committed, his presence at the crime spot cannot be ruled out. But that does not mean that the prosecution will not need to prove the presence of the accused. On the other hand, if the accused is successful in proving his plea of alibi, he will be acquitted without any doubt.

Therefore, as per the facts of the present case if M, accused of murdering A at Adilabad on 26-02-1987, clearly established the facts that he was at Guntur on that day, M shall be acquitted without any doubt but if he failed to prove so his presence in Adilabad cannot be ruled out.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X