Section - 11 of Evidence Act - When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant and Plea of Alibi for judicial services examination

Section – 11. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant

Section -11 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the concepts of Facts not otherwise relevant become relevant and makes provision as a defending ground for the accused.
Under this section, the accused can lead evidence as to facts inconsistent with it or which renders its existence improbable or non – existence probable

Nature of facts:
The Section 11 include of two clauses, viz.,
1. Facts in step with fact in issue or relevant fact, and
2. Facts highly probable or improbable.
1. Facts inconsistent with fact in issue or relevancy of fact:
One fact is inconsistent with the opposite when it cannot co-exist with the opposite. Under this clause facts are relevant only because they can’t 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-exist. “The usual theory of essential inconsistency is that a specific fact cannot co-exist with the doing of the act in question, and, therefore, that if that fact is true of an individual of whom the actual fact is alleged, it’s impossible that he should have done the act.

Plea Of Alibi

Section – 11 of Evidence Act – When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant and Plea of Alibi for judicial services examination

Alibi-A plea of an accused under the Indian evidence act
The term “Alibi “is a Latin word which implies – elsewhere or some another place. In criminal law this plea is employed by accused against the commission of an alleged offence.
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
When the accused took the plea of alibi the burden of proof lies on him under section 103 of this Act. If a person is charged with murder he is to prove that he was elsewhere. The plea of alibi has to be taken at the earliest opportunity and it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court.
When to raise the plea of alibi:
In order for a plea of alibi to be effective, it is always wise to make the plea at the earliest possible time in the initial stage of a case; this stage could be at the stage of framing of charge or preliminary hearing.
However, in some jurisdictions, there may be a requirement that the accused disclose a defence prior to the trial.
On the contrary, jurists in other jurisdictions have held an opinion that the mandatory early disclosure of alibis is unfair, possibly even unconstitutional.

Non Access of the husband to indicate illegitimacy of the child
Survival of the alleged deceased
Commission of the offence by the third person
Self infliction of harm.
Non execution of document

Binay Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283
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.

Dudh Nath Pandey case (1981)
The Plea of Alibi was explained by Apex court as –

The plea of alibi states that the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the crime scene by reason of his presence at another place. The plea can therefore succeed provided that it’s shown that the accused was to date away that he couldn’t be present at the place where the alleged crime was committed.

Is alibi a best defense or not?

The purpose of alibi isn’t to determine or prove anything but merely to boost a doubt within the mind of judge that accused wasn’t present at the crime scene.

If this plea was made at initial proceedings accompanied with strong and independent evidences then there are more chances of acquittal or discharge of accused.

Circumstantial evidence to determine alibi doesn’t guarantee its acknowledgment by the court.
The plea of alibi isn’t affirmative defense within the sense that it’s an assertion to boost an inexpensive doubt on whether the accused is really a wrongdoer.