PLEA OF ALIBI-

Sec 103 Indian Evidence Act , 1872- The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person
who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact
shall lie on any particular person.

Illustrations: A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A
must prove the admission. B wishes the court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere.
He must prove it."

In State Of Haryana V. Sher Singh & Ors 1981 AIR 1021 the court held that when an accused pleads
alibi, the burden of proof under section 103 of the Evidence Act is on the accused.

In this case defence did not adduce any evidence to prove the alibi. Therefore, the plea of all the accused
that they were elsewhere at the time of the offence was held not true.

Sec 11 IEA- When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.—

Facts not otherwise relevant are 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.

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.

In case of Binay Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283, it was held 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.

(a) When the defence of alibi fails-Failure on the part of accused to establish plea of alibi does not help
the prosecution and it cannot be held that the accused was present at the scene of occurrence, the
prosecution must prove it by positive evidence. Thus the mere failure on the part of the accused to
establish the plea of alibi, shall not lead to an inference that the accused was present at the scene of
occurrence.

(b) Non access of husband to show illegitimacy of the child:

Since legitimacy of the child implies a cohabitation between husband and wife. For disproving the
legitimacy the husband has to prove that he had no cohabitation with his wife during the probable time of
begetting as he was in abroad

MORAL TURPITUDE-

As per the direction of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in WP (Civil)2124/2009 in the Parvesh v/s
State of Haryana

 The term 'moral turpitude' is not defined anywhere. Para 9

 Generally speaking, moral turpitude has been defined as meaning an act of baseness, vileness or
depravity in private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men or society in general.
Para 10
 There is no hard and fast rule as to what constitutes 'moral turpitude'. Whether any particular
conviction involves 'moral turpitude', may be a question of fact and frequently depending on
surrounding circumstances. It is, thus, difficult to determine just what crimes do involve moral
turpitude. Para 11
 Sexual crimes would fall within scope of moral turpitude, but sexual offences are not the only
offences involving moral turpitude - There are other offences also which within term moral
turpitude. Para 11
 Given test should ordinarily be applied in judging whether certain offences are such which would
involve moral turpitude or not and these are as under :-
  Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of
society in general.
 Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one.
 Whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator could be
considered to be of depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by
the society.

In Baleshwar Singh Vs. District Magistrate and Collector, Banaras, AIR 1959 Allahabad 71, the
term was said to mean "anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals." It was also
observed that it would imply depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged
with the particular conduct. A stand or a conduct, which is vile or shows depravity in doing of any private
or social duty, which a person may owe to his fellow man or society in general, was also termed as being
covered by the term.

In case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another,1996 (4) SCC 17, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court gave the following meaning to this expression:-

"Moral turpitude" is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct
which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity."

The Court also went ahead to make observation that the Courts should be sensitive to the changing
perspective or concept of morality to appreciate the effect of a particular offence on today's Society.

HEINOUS OFFENCES, PETTY OFFENCES, SERIOUS OFFENCES

Sec 2 of The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 says that-

(33) “heinous offences” includes the offences for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal
Code or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more;

(45) “petty offences” includes the offences for which the maximum punishment under the Indian Penal
Code or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment up to three years;

(54) “serious offences” includes the offences for which the punishment under the Indian Penal Code or
any other law for the time being in force, is imprisonment between three to seven years;

Section 14 provides for inquiry by Board regarding child in conflict with law.
  cases of petty offences, shall be disposed of by the Board through summary proceedings, as per
the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
 inquiry of serious offences shall be disposed of by the Board, by following the procedure, for trial
in summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
 inquiry of heinous offences,— (i) for child below the age of sixteen years as on the date of
commission of an offence shall be disposed of by the Board as in serious offences ; (ii) for child
above the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be dealt with in
the manner prescribed under section 15.

Sec 15 says that in case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has
completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with
regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences
of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence,

Sec 18 Where the Board after preliminary assessment under section 15 pass an order that there is a need
for trial of the said child as an adult, then the Board may order transfer of the trial of the case to the
Children’s Court having jurisdiction to try such offences.

Sec 101- provides for appeal-

 Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Board under this Act may, within thirty days from
the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Children’s Court
 No appeal shall lie from any order of acquittal made by the Board in respect of a child alleged to
have committed an offence other than the heinous offence by a child who has completed or is
above the age of sixteen years
 An appeal shall lie against an order of the Board passed after making the preliminary assessment
into a heinous offence under section 15 of the Act, before the Court of Sessions
 No second appeal shall lie from any order of the Court of Session, passed in appeal under this
section.
 Any person aggrieved by an order of the Children’s Court may file an appeal before the High
Court in accordance with the procedure specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.