Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act discusses when facts not otherwise relevant can become relevant in legal cases. It provides two conditions: (1) if the facts are inconsistent with facts in issue or other relevant facts, or (2) if the facts alone or in connection with other facts make the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue highly probable or improbable. The document then provides examples of how facts could meet these conditions, such as establishing an alibi to show someone was elsewhere during a crime. It also discusses the burden of proof for establishing an alibi defense and considerations around the credibility of alibis.

1. SECTION 11
of
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACT,1872
PRESENTED BY:
Shikha Srivastava
B.A.LL.B.(7th sem)
Invertis University, Bareiily 1

2. Section 11
“When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant”
(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make
the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant
fact highly probable or improbable.
2

3. Illustrations
(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day.
The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time
when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was
committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that
he committed it, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A,
B, C or D. Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by
no one else and that it was not committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.
3

4. Clause(1)
Facts inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant facts
There are generally five classes of cases that arise for consideration under
this clause:
i) Alibi;
ii) Non-access of husband to show illegitimacy of issue;
iii) Survival - of the alleged deceased;
iv) Commission – of an offence by a third person;
v) Self-infliction – of harm.
4

5. Plea of Alibi
 An Alibi is a legal maxim for a claim of a piece of evidence that one was
elsewhere when an alleged act took place.
 An Alibi is an excuse. It is a defense in a criminal prosecution.
 If a person is successful in establishing a plea of alibi, he will be entitled to an
acquittal.
 The plea of absence of a person, charged with an offence, from the place of
occurrence at the time of the commission of the offence is called the plea of
alibi.
5

6.  According to Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of
proof lies on him and not on the prosecution.
 Proof of alibi should be set up at the earliest stage of proceedings. Failure
to do so would made it unconvincing. However, the Court must give the
accused to avail the defense and prove his alibi to its satisfaction.
 An uncorroborated evidence of alibi cannot be given importance/weight.
 Public documents generally come to the help of defense in setting up the
alibi
6

7. In Munshi Prasad and others v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 3031),
The presence of the accused at a distance of 400-500 yards between place
of occurrence cannot be said to be presence elsewhere. It cannot be
impossibility to be at place of occurrence and also at panchayat meeting.
In Vijay Pal v. State(GNCT) Delhi, AIR 2015 SC 1495,
the supreme court held that the burden on the accused is rather heavy and
he is required to establish the plea of alibi with certitude. The plea can
succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant
time that he could not be present at the place where crime was committed.
7

8. Clause (2)
‘Highly probable or improbable’
The words highly probable point out that the connection between the facts
in issue and the collateral facts sought to be proved must be so immediate
as to render the co-existence of the two highly probable.
8

9. In Brijlal Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 2443,
the police officials were tried for murder of some alleged culprits in
encounter. It was alleged that the occupants of vehicle used by deceased
were also fired from their firearms. But ballistic report showed that the
pistol found near dead body, from which the deceased were alleged to have
fired, were never used and also that those arms were defective. Thus, the
allegation that the deceased had fired from pistol and the ballistic report
that the pistol were never used and was defective, were held inconsistent
fact. Thus, the ballistic report was admissible under this section.
9

10. THANK
YOU !
10