This article is written by Aaliya Fatima of University of Lucknow, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
Abstract
The legal system of Democratic Republic of India or simply one of the largest democracies in the world made sure that justice is served to each and every person of the country. The law of India makes sure that the rights to defend oneself is available to everyone including the accusers too. This research paper hence emphasizes on the defence allegations applicable to people subjected to any crimes or any kind of offence in the country. The defence evidence on the allegation are of different types in India. There are several ways by which a person can try to prove himself innocent in the eyes of the law. This paper would discuss about all those different kinds of ways and methods that discusses the same. It would also talk about different sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure that provides with the same. The paper is descriptive in nature and the objective of the paper is to make the people aware of the rights that are available to them at any point of their lives.
Keywords
Allegation, defence, alibi, accused, justice
Introduction
India is a country wherein the law of the state is supreme and nobody, absolutely nobody can surpass or challenge the law of the State. The makers of the Constitution of India made sure that justice in the form of law reached each and every doorstep of the Democratic Republic of India. Hence in order to make sure that every person is equal in the face of law and nobody is denied justice notwithstanding if the person standing and facing the accusations is itself an accused or the culprit for the crime to which he or she is subjected to. The law of the state makes sure that even a person who is accused of doing something to which he or she was prohibited has the right to present himself in front of the court. Even the person who is accused of the most heinous crimes gets the right to protect himself from the accusations or to save themselves from the allegations. This was basically designed so that it can be made sure that an innocent person who gets accused in a false case can also claim defence in the eyes of the law. This step makes sure that no innocent person gets exploited and serves punishment that he or she is not supposed to. This article hence focuses on those defence evidences that are available to each and every individual notwithstanding if they are actually subjected as accusers to those specific crimes or not. This paper also tends to make the concept easier for the people belonging to non- law background as well as easy for them to understand and interpret the same.
Types of proof in defence
From the times of ancient Rome and Greece, the concept of defence by defence has existed. The first known recognition of insanity as a defence to criminal charges was recorded in a 1581 English legal treatise stating that, “If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his Lunacy” kills someone, they cannot be held accountable[1]. The courts of the British introduced the new concept of the “wild beast” test in the 18th Century, wherein defendants were not to be convicted if they understood and prove the crime was not better than “an infant, a brute, or a wild beast”.
Criminal liability requires proof of three components which are inter related and are as follows:
- Commission of the prohibited act or simply a guilty act (Actus Reus)
- Committed with a guilty mind or it was the intention of the person to commit the same (Mens Rea)
- Committed without a legal defence
There has been no change in the concept of the defence evidence or understanding and knowledge other than autonomy and capacity to choose the right and wrong for criminal liability. The other concept that human behavior is the outcome of a conversation between biological and environmental factors rather than free choice was unsuccessfully to impress the criminal justice system due to a direct threat to a society’s deep-seated need to blame someone than themselves for criminal harms that occur.
Law’s denunciatory and punitive response to a person who is guilty of crime is known sentence. Individual blameworthiness is often considered, and external circumstances are viewed as mitigating factors while awarding punishment.[2]
DEFENCES
A Defence is that plea which when successfully raised will lead to acquittal on charges of crime.
Different types of defences
- Failure of proof defences: These are those defences that somehow failed to prove the defences that were not found as circumstantial evidence.
- Exculpatory defences
- Applying force to another person in self-defence.
- Actions of insane person.
- No exculpatory defences. Diplomatic immunity and statutory time limitations on persecuting the crime.
- Exculpatory defences are further divided into two more types:
1.Justifications
2.Excuses.
Justifications render and are conducted for the accused wherein the accused has the right to justify himself in front of the court wherein in the case of excuse, the accuser focuses on excusing himself or herself from the crime. Justifications focus on the “legality of the act” and Excuses focus on “blameworthiness of the actor”
Actus Reus comprises the followings:
An act which is prohibited by law
An act which is prohibited and is committed
The act leads to full commission of the crime.
The person was aware he was committing guilty act.
DEFENSES PREVENTING ACTUS REUS
There is no denial of the offense but there is an argument that the accused had not committed the crime:
If he proves that he was somewhere else or simply raises the alibi plea
By arguing and justifying that the people present as eye witness are mistaken.
By arguing and justifying that the people present as eye witness are lying.
By denying that the harm is not committed by them.
By arguing and justifying that the act or omission was not done out of will.
An act done in an unconscious state or during sleep.
DEFENSES PREVENTING MENS REA
There must be a mind at fault to constitute a criminal act. The concurrence of act and guilty mind constitutes a crime. This theory has its basis in the Latin maxim.
“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”
Which clearly states that the person is not guilty as long as the mind is not guilty.
The guilty mind comprises of two types of faults which are as follows:
Subjective fault
Objective fault.
SUBJECTIVE FAULT NORMALLY INCLUDES
Intention
The person accused of certain crime was fully aware as to what he was doing, had the full intention to commit the crime or simply knew that the act he is committing can lead to something harmful or simply something which is prohibited by law.
Recklessness
The person subject to any crime clearly sees the probability of the harm occurring but does not do anything to stop that upcoming harm. Nonetheless, sometimes the accused involves into another action which may lead to another offence or simply contribute to the harm that would be caused eventually.
Recklessness sometimes emerges as one of the most controversial forms of defences as people argue that s crime would have been prevented if the person knowing the probability of the crime would have not been reckless enough. In such cases it is seen and tested if it was really a reckless behaviour or that a person willingly kept himself shit in order to let the crime occur. Hence it becomes all the more difficult as well as necessary to differentiate between reckless behaviour of the person and pretending to be reckless but actually was quite aware of the nature of the act.
In such cases, the person accused of certain crime has to strongly raise his or plea that the act was nothing but a result of reckless behaviour. In order to prove this, there must be strong arguments and circumstantial evidences stating the same. If the person is successful in doing the same, it is not necessary that he might be freed from the entire crimes charge but may receive a concession for the same.
Alibi as the best form of defence
Alibi is a Latin word, which means elsewhere. Alibi is that plea that which an offender uses in the court that he was not present at the place of crime when it was being committed and that he or she was somewhere else. In such cases it is the responsibility of the prosecution to discharge the burden satisfactorily. Once the prosecution is successful in discharging this burden it is the responsibility on the accused who has taken the place of alibi and has to guarantee and prove the court the same with absolute certainty. An alibi is not an exception present in the Indian Penal Code or any other law. Section 11 of the Evidence Act recognises as the rule of evidence that facts inconsistent with fact in issue are relevant. But to keep in mind, it cannot be the only link or only circumstance to bare conviction. This is because when one fact which is important for the case is absent but is present in rest of the circumstances of the case, the case of the prosecutor would fail. Because, an alibi the relevancy of which is totally inconsistence with hypothesis that the accused had committed an offence.[3]
Section 103 of this Act states that when the person accused took the defence of alibi, the burden to prove the same lies on him. Suppose is a person is charged with an offence, for instance, hit and run, he has to prove it to the court that he was not on the crime spot and was somewhere else. The plea of alibi has to be taken as soon as possible and it has to be proved until the court is satisfied.
When to raise the plea of alibi:
If a person accused of some offence wants his plea of alibi to be successful, he has to make sure that the same plea is raised at the earliest opportunities when the case is in its initial proceedings. However, there are some jurisdictions wherein there may be a criterion that the person accused raises a defence even before the trial is started. On the other hand, jurists in different jurisdictions have stated their opinion that the compulsory early raise of alibis is not fair, and sometimes even unconstitutional.
Case Laws:
Lakhan Singh Pappu vs The State of NCT of Delhi, Delhi HC Appeal No. 166/1999[4]
Wherein the court stated that the plea of alibi should be taken at the earliest during the initial stages of the crime. The accuser would be offered no excuse as to why he or she has not taken the opportunity of alibi as defence at the earliest times possible. An alibi raised afterwards does not count to defence.
Conclusion
Defence evidence on the allegation indeed upholds the trust in the judicial system of the country by providing equal rights to each party facing each other which allows themselves to prove themselves. These steps ensure fair trial and impartiality among the masses hence keeping up with the legal spirit. The defence evidence gives an opportunity to the accused to defend themselves in the court, aftermath which the court gives its verdict. All this ensures that the integrity of the judicial system is protected as well as it ensures that people are reliable and trust the process of the court. All these steps in turn guarantees that India is indeed and absolutely the Democratic Republic of India wherein the ‘democracy’ or the rights of the people is considered and upheld above anything else.
[1] PMC PubMed Central, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5282615/, last visited 23/23
[2] Hirsch V. Proportionate Sentencing: Exploring the Principles. Oxford University Press; 200.
[3] Legal Service India, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-533-alibi-a-plea-of-an-accused-under-the-indian-evidence-act.html, last visited 25/6/23
[4] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123325217/, last visited 25/6/23
0 Comments