Alibi Proof, Unsplittable Dying Declaration: SC Acquits

Alibi Witnesses Deserve Equal Treatment, and a Dying Declaration Naming Everyone Alike Cannot Be Split: Supreme Court

Published: 6 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court acquitted four in-laws convicted of burning a woman to death on her dying declaration. Two proved through employer, tenant and scooter-dealer witnesses that they were far away, and the courts below had wrongly picked holes in that defence evidence (paras 25-37). As the declaration blamed every in-law alike for every act, it could not be split, and an unchallenged neighbour's account of a door bolted from inside raised the possibility of suicide (paras 40-43).

Key holdings

The burden of proving guilt stays on the prosecution even when an accused pleads alibi; courts must not pick holes in defence evidence (paras 24-25).

The standard of proof for an alibi is the same reasonable standard applied to prosecution evidence (para 27).

Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with prosecution witnesses (para 27).

A dying declaration can be acted on in part only where its parts are severable and the part relied on is corroborated (paras 39-40).

Unchallenged evidence suggesting suicide cannot be glossed over and entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt (paras 41-43).

Brief Facts

Asha Devi, married to a soldier and living in a one-room tenement next to her in-laws, suffered 100% burns on 05.04.1996 and died on the way to Chandigarh (paras 4, 7-8). In a dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate she said all six in-laws had beaten her the day before, stopped her from going to the police, and then tied her up, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire (paras 5-7). The trial court convicted them of murder in 1998, rejecting the alibi of her brother-in-law Prem Nath and his wife Raj Bala, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed their appeal (paras 16-18, 21-22).

Court's Findings

The courts below treated Prem Nath and Raj Bala as if they had to prove their innocence, when it was for the prosecution to prove guilt (para 24). An accused who sets up an alibi must lend it credence, but the court must test defence evidence like any other and not pick holes in it; Dudh Nath Pandey and Binay Kumar Singh explain the plea, and Mohinder Singh applies the same reasonable standard of proof to both sides (paras 25-27). Factory records, a tenant who saw the couple at 7.45 a.m. (mistranscribed in the High Court as 5.45 a.m.) and a dealer who sold Prem Nath a scooter at 11 a.m. made their presence improbable, and the theory that they shuttled between Pinjore and the village was far-fetched (paras 28-37). Following Godhu, a dying declaration can be partly accepted only if its parts are severable; here every in-law was named for every act, so it could not be split (paras 39-40). Neither court considered the unchallenged neighbour who broke open a door bolted from inside, which made suicide possible, so Jumni and Sham Lal got the benefit of doubt (paras 41-43).

Legal Principle

Defence witnesses are to be tested like prosecution witnesses, and an alibi need only be proved to a reasonable standard. A dying declaration may be accepted in part only if its parts are severable; where it attributes every act to all the accused alike, the court cannot convict some while disbelieving it about others (paras 25-27, 39-40).

Precedents Relied Upon

Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 166
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 26, 27
An alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the accused’s presence at the scene; defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with prosecution witnesses, and courts must overcome their instinctive disbelief in them.
Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1997) 1 SCC 283
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 26
An alibi is a rule of evidence under Section 11 of the Evidence Act; the prosecution must first prove the accused’s presence, and if the alibi evidence raises a reasonable doubt the accused gets its benefit.
Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 8 SCC 165
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 26
Reiterated the explanation of the plea of alibi given in Binay Kumar Singh.

View all precedents (5)

Mohinder Singh v. State 1950 SCR 821
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27
The standard of proof required for a plea of alibi is the same reasonable standard applied to the prosecution evidence.
Godhu v. State of Rajasthan (1975) 3 SCC 241
Applied Discussed at ¶ 39, 40
A dying declaration need not be rejected entirely because a part is not correct; a severable part may be acted on if corroborated, but where the parts are indissolubly linked the whole may be rejected.

Alibi Witnesses Deserve Equal Treatment, and a Dying Declaration Naming Everyone Alike Cannot Be Split: Supreme Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Daily Wagers Treated as Permanent Cannot Be Denied the 1 July Increment on Retirement: Supreme Court

Courts Cannot Read Equivalence Into Recruitment Rules: Supreme Court Holds NIOS Certificate Fails ‘10+2 System’ Requirement

Tax Follows the Form at Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Rules Drink-Mix Powder Is Not a Beverage