Plea Of Alibi Can Be Applied Only If “Elsewhere Place” Is Far Away From Place Of Occurrence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the plea of alibi can be applied only if the 'elsewhere place' is far away from the place of occurrence. 

The Court reiterated thus in a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court by which it confirmed the conviction under Sections 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), punishable under Sections 302, 201, and 498A of IPC.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, "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."

Senior Advocate A Sirajudeen represented the Appellant while AOR Prashant Singh represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts -

As per the prosecution case, the marriage between the Appellant-convict and the deceased was solemnised in the year 2006. The incident which led to the conviction of the Appellant in connection with the death of his wife occurred in 2012 at his house, which was the matrimonial home of the deceased. The paternal home of the deceased was also proximately situated viz., around 50 meters from her matrimonial home. The Appellant was allegedly addicted to gambling and to lash out money therefor, he used to torture her physically and mentally. He had mortgaged the jewellery of the deceased for the said purpose and the deceased used to share such sorrowful incidents with her sister.

When her sister went to the house of the deceased, she told that she was thrashed by the Appellant-husband. The Appellant went to his in-laws’ house and informed them that Pushpa hanged herself and thereupon, he along with her parents gone back home where Pushpa was seen on bed on her knees and still knotted by dupatta around the neck, which in turn, was tied to a piece of wood near the ceiling fan. Accordingly, an FIR was registered and the Trial Court convicted the Appellant, sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. As the High Court confirmed the conviction, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances, said, “Section 106 is an exception to the general rule laid down in Section 101, that the burden of proving a fact rest on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issues and that this Section is not intended to relieve any person of that duty or burden.”

The Court further noted that, 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.

“In the case on hand, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing, rather it is an attempt and undisputed fact that the deceased and the appellant-convict were residing in the place of occurrence, which is the house of the accused. On the death of the wife, the appellant alone could offer an explanation, though this Section could not be used so as to shift the onus of proving the offence from the prosecution to the accused”, it added.

The Court also observed that, in the absence of explanation when other circumstances fasten the culpability on the Appellant’s failure to offer satisfactory explanation as to the occurrence, the only possible inference could be that the accused had participated in the crime.

“As established by the prosecution, the place of occurrence is the matrimonial home of the deceased where the deceased and appellant were living. The evidence of PW-8, Aarti that the deceased was being tortured, physically and mentally was also not controverted while being cross-examined, as held by the two Courts. The Courts have taken note of the fact that though PW-8 gave evidence to such effect while being examined in chief, there was no cross-examination on such points to make her untrustworthy”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal.

Cause Title- Ashok Verma v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1011)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate A Sirajudeen, AOR Manjeet Chawla, Advocates Usha Pant Kukreti, and Shaik Soni Ahamed.

Respondent: AOR Prashant Singh, Advocates Prerna Dhall, and Piyush Yadav.

Click here to read/download the Judgment