PLEA OF ALIBI

What is basic concept of plea of alibi? Explain this concept with examples.

The concept of the plea of alibi is an important defense mechanism in

criminal law, and it is articulated in the S 9 of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam or S 11 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Here's a detailed
explanation along with examples:

Definition and Legal Basis

Alibi: The term "alibi" is derived from Latin, meaning "elsewhere." A plea
of alibi is a defense used by an accused person claiming that they were at
a different location at the time the alleged offense was committed,
making it impossible for them to be the perpetrator.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

• The plea of alibi is governed by S 9 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam of

Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states:

• "Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they are inconsistent with
any fact in issue or relevant fact."

• "Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant 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."

Application of the Plea of Alibi:

1. Burden of Proof:

• The burden of proving the plea of alibi lies on the accused. This is
because it is a special defense, and the accused must establish it by
producing convincing evidence.

• However, the standard of proof required for an alibi is not beyond a

reasonable doubt but should be strong enough to create reasonable doubt
about the presence of the accused at the crime scene.

2. Evidence Required:

• The accused needs to present credible and reliable evidence to support

the alibi, such as witness testimonies, documents, or other forms of proof
that confirm their presence at a different location during the time of the
crime.
Examples

Example 1:

• Scenario: An individual is accused of committing a robbery in Mumbai

on 15th June at 8 PM.

• Plea of Alibi: The accused claims they were attending a wedding in

Delhi on the same date and time.

• Evidence: The accused presents wedding invitations, travel tickets,

hotel bills, and testimonies from guests at the wedding to support the
alibi.

Example 2:

• Scenario: A person is charged with a murder that took place on 10th

August at 6 PM in Chennai.

• Plea of Alibi: The accused asserts that they were in a hospital in

Bangalore attending to a medical emergency during the time of the
murder.

• Evidence: The accused provides medical records, CCTV footage from

the hospital, and statements from hospital staff to substantiate the alibi.

Conclusion:

The plea of alibi is a crucial defence in criminal trials, enabling the

accused to demonstrate that they could not have committed the alleged
crime because they were elsewhere at the relevant time. Under the Indian
Evidence Act, it requires the accused to present compelling evidence to
substantiate their claim, thereby creating reasonable doubt about their
presence at the crime scene. This plea must be carefully evaluated in the
context of all available evidence to ensure a fair trial.

CHAPTER II RELEVANCY OF FACTS

Section 7

INGREDIENTS

Section 7 of our Indian Evidence Act deals with variety of facts. To enlist
them, the section provides for the relevancy of following kinds of facts:

 Facts constituting the Occasion

 Facts which show the Cause
S,C,O,P,
 The Effects of the principal facts
E
  Facts which provide for the Opportunity for the happening of the
principal facts
 Facts which constitute the State of things under which the
principal facts happened

R v. Richardson

Facts: A young woman who lived with her parents was one day left alone
in the cottage, her parents gone out. On their return home, a little after
mid day, they found their daughter murdered, with her throat cut,
probably by some one who was left handed.

Upon opening of the body the deceased appeared to be some months

pregnant and on examining the death scene there were discovered the
foot steps of a person running hastily from the cottage towards an indirect
road and had stepped into a mire which would have resulted in the killers
wet leg nearly up to the middle of his leg. Investigation was launched and
the investigating officer invited every possible person at the funeral with a
hope that in order to avoid suspicion the killer would too attend that
funeral.

Upon arrival of the guests, they were all asked to remove their shoes and
they were measured. One of the shoe was the exact match to the foot
print found on the scene as the footprint seemed to be of a shoe whose
sole had been recently mended by a had iron knobs and nails in them and
the matched shoe had them too.

Upon, his examination he admitted he was left-handed and latter it was

corroborated from his co-workers that he went away from the work place
for about an hour and when he returned his leg was soaked in water up to
knee length. Also the cottage fell on his way to work and a young girl who
was about 100 yards away from the cottage saw a man matching his
description and uniform going towards the cottage around the time of the
murder.

Occassion

Evidence can always be given of those facts which have the tendency
show that there was in fact an occasion for the happening of the Principal
fact.

In the case of R v. Richardson the fact that the girl was alone in the
cottage at the time of the murder is relevant as it constituted the occasion
for the murder.
Ex. The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, shortly before the
robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that he
showed it, or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons, are
relevant.

CAUSE

Evidence can be given of a set of circumstances which constitute the

cause for the happening of the principal fact. "Cause" often explains why
a particular act was done. It helps the court to connect the person with
the fact. The act in the question must have been done by the person who
has the cause for it.

For ex. A person is running short of money and that may cause him to
take loan. Now later on if he denies the fact of the loan evidence can be
given of the circumstances which became the cause of the loan.In Indian
Airlines v. Madhuri Chaudhari report of an inquiry commission relating to
the crash of the airplane was admitted under this section as it showed the
cause of the incident.

EFFECTS

Every act leaves behind certain effects which not only record the
happening of the act, but also throw light upon the nature of the act.
Section 7, therefore, provides that the facts which are the effects,
immediate or otherwise, of a fact on issue or of a relevant fact, shall be
relevant.

Ex. The question is, whether A murdered B. Marks on the ground,

produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murder was
committed, are relevant facts.

Similarly, where a person is poisoned the symptoms produced by a person

are relevant, being the effects of the facts in issue.

OPPORTUNITY

The circumstances which provide an opportunity for the happening of a

fact in issue are relevant. Often a person has to carve out for himself an
opportunity to the act in question. This may involve a break from his
normal routine. Evidence of opportunity becomes important as it shows
that the act must have been done by the person who had the opportunity
to do it. For ex- in R v. Richardson, the killer had to take break for an hour
or so from his work routine to go an commit the crime.

The question is, whether A poisoned B. The state of B's health before the
symptoms ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to A, which afforded
an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant facts.
STATE OF THINGS

The facts which constitute the state of things under which or in the
background of which the principal facts happened are relevant. This
category would allow evidence of state of relations between the parties
and in the case of murder the health of deceased and his habits etc.

For ex- In the case of Ratten v. Reginam where the accused was being
prosecuted for shooting down his wife and he took defense of the
accident, the fact that that the relation between the parties were strained
would become relevant and would fall under this category of section 7.

Section 8

MOTIVE

Section 8 of the act says that the facts which show the motive for ant fact
in issue or relevant facts are relevant. Motive by itself is no crime
howsoever heinous it might be. But when once a crime is committed
motive becomes important because when the fact in issue or relevant
facts are seen in the light of the motive many things start making sense
as to why such act was done and connects the accused with the deed. For
ex. In R v. Richardson, the killer killed the girl because she was pregnant
with his child and he did not want anyone to know about the illicit
relations he made with her. hence this was the motive which was the
driving factor behind that crime and connected accused to it although
there was no direct evidence found of it. Whenever the question arises
whether the act was intentional or accidental, the question of motive
becomes very important because if there was a motive, there would be a
high chance for the act to have been intentional.

PREPARATION

Section 8 further provides that the acts of preparation are relevant.

Preparation by itself is no crime. For ex- a person buys a pistol with the
intention of killing another person or has bought gasoline & matchbox for
burning someone alive, unless those acts are done, is by itself is no crime.
But as soon as those acts are done, then these facts become important
and become relevant under section 8.

Illustration (c) of the section is an example of preparation. Where A

charged for the murder of B, the fact that he was seen procuring the same
poison that was administered to B few hours ago becomes relevant under
this section.

These facts help build a nexus between the accused and the crime
committed
CONDUCT

There is very popular saying- "A guilty mind begets a guilty conduct." The
Conduct of a man is particularly important to the law of evidence for his
guilt or state of mind is often reflected by his conduct. For ex. A man
charged with wife's murder failed to shed tears, the defendant's offer to
marry the girl who charged him with rape shows to an extent the guilt of
the accused. Hence under Section 8 the conduct of a person is a relevant
fact. The section provides for the persons whose conduct is relevant

 The conduct of the parties and their agents in a civil suit and
accused in a criminal suit.
 The conduct of the victim of the offence.

The conduct of the parties is relevant only when the conduct is in

reference to the fact in issue or the relevant facts or when the conduct is
influenced by the fact in issue or the facts relevant.

Subject to these, the conduct is relevant whether it is previous to the

happening of the facts or later.

It is necessary under section 8 that the conduct must be influenced by or

influences the fact in issue or the relevant facts. This requirement was in
close scrutiny in the case of Queen Empress v Abdullah.

Facts: Abdullah was accused of murder of a girl who was told to be a

prostitute. He slid her throat when she was alone at her home at the break
of the dawn when there was just enough light to see his face properly. She
was taken to the hospital where she endeavored to recognize her killer by
nodding but surgeon forbade it. Then her mother held her arm straight
and asked her questions in response of which she pointed her finger. Now
the question was whether her pointing of finger would amount to conduct
under this section or would fall under the category of dying declaration
under section 32(1) of the act.

The majority of the bench sided with Petheram C.J who was of the opinion
that in the present case the finger pointing would not fall under the
category of the conduct under this section because the conduct must be
influenced directly by the facts and not by the interposition of the words
spoken by the third party. He was of the opinion that the signs of the
hands were not influenced by the facts but by the questions.

On the other hand Mahmood J. did not agree with the majority reasoning
and resorted to illustration (f) of the section where he said that although
A's conduct was undoubtedly influenced by the fact in issue, it is only
influenced through the intervention of the 3rd person, C.

Relevancy of Statements
First explanation to the section declares that for the purposes of this
section, "conduct" does not include statements. But there are 2
exceptions:-

Statements accompanying or explaining conduct. Ex- the act of an injured

person in making complaint about the offence done to him is a conduct
and the statements comprising of which the complaint is made is
accompanying the conduct and hence relevant. Illustration (j) and (k)
explain this.

Statements affecting conduct. Ex- In Queen Empress v. Abdullah the

conduct of the injured girl in pointing the finger would be totally
meaningless unless it was taken in the light of the questions asked to her
leading her up to the sign of the hands. Justice Mahmood in his dissenting
opinion maintained that the questions and the conduct should have been
admitted under section 8 of the act.

Section 6 v Section 8:

Conduct can be simultaneous, previous or subsequent. If any conduct is

simultaneous with the fact, that will fall under the ambit of section 6 but
when the conduct is previous or subsequent, they would fall under section
8 but of they form the part of the same transaction, for that purpose they
would fall under both the sections. Also under section 6 conduct of any
surrounding person can be taken into account but fpr the purposes of
section 8, conduct of only accused is taken into account.

SECTION 9

INGREDIENTS

Section 9 of Indian evidence Act, 1872 deals with relevancy of large

number of facts which are introductory or explanatory in nature. They are
as follows:

 Facts necessary to introduce or explain

 Facts which support or rebut an inference
 Facts which establish the identity of any person
 Facts which fix time and place
 Facts which show relation between the parties

INTRODUCTORY OR EXPLANATORY FACTS

Evidence can be given of those facts which are necessary to explain or

introduce the principal fact or other relevant facts. In other words, those
facts which tell us something of introductory in nature or those facts which
help ex[plain the nature of the principal fact are relevant. For ex- the
question is whether a document is the will of A. State of A's property and
of his family at the date of his alleged will may be relevant facts. Here

these facts are introducing the facts about the state of A's property which
is the subject matter of the will and hence will help the court in deciding
whether that will is of A or not.

In another example where A is tried for the mob and is proved to have
marched at the head of the mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as
they are explanatory as to what the mob was the nature of the mob and
their goal. Those cries are relevant as they are to an extent explaining the
nature of the mob.

SUPPORT OR REBUT AN INFERENCE

Evidence can be given of those facts which either support or rebut an

inference suggested by any fact in issue or any relevant fact. For ex- a
person is accused of crime, the fact that soon after the commission of the
crime, he absconded from his house. Now this conduct of his is relevant
under section 8 as an inference of his guilt. Now any fact which can
support or rebut this inference becomes relevant too under this section.
For ex- if, the police now finds him in a train travelling without ticket and
clothes stained with blood, this fact supports the inference that he is
guilty and will become relevant. While on other hand if he is able to show
that he had an urgent business elsewhere and had to leave in a hurry,
now this fact will be relevant as this rebuts the inference that he is guilty.
In the case of Matru v. State of U.P, where accused accompanied the
complainant all the time till his filing of the complaint, when he started
feeling that he was being suspected he ran away. The court said that the
conduct has to be seen in light of the circumstances of the case and even
a innocent person might run when wrongly suspected.

Another method of establishing identity of person is by the method of

superimposed photography. In the case of Ram Lochan v State of West
Bengal, Supreme Court held that the superimposed photograph of the
deceased over the skeleton of the human body recovered from a tank was
admissible to prove the identity of the deceased.

Test Identification Parade:

In the cases where there are eye witness but the accused is actually
unknown to the witnesses and they claim that they remember the
features of the accused, in that case test identification parade becomes
important. This is fair to both the parties, accused as well the victim. It
enables the investigating officer top ascertain whether the witness had
actually seen the perpetrator of the crime. It is held before a Judicial
magistrate

. TIME AND PLACE

Section 9 provides for the relevancy of the facts which happen to establish
the time or place of happening of the fact in issue or other relevant facts.
The report of an expert is relevant to fix the time of murder and the marks
of struggle on the ground are relevant to fix the place of the crime.

RELATION OF PARTIES

Facts which show the relation between the parties is also relevant under
section 9 of the act. A large number of cases owe their origin to the
preexisting relation between the parties particularly in the cases of libel or
undue influence. Hence they are important in a case.

SECTION 10

WHAT IS CONSPIRACY?

Conspiracy has been defined under section 120A of Indian Penal Code,
1860. As per that, when two or more people agree to do any illegal act or
any act which is not illegal per se but is to be done by illegal act, that
agreement would amount to conspiracy. For an offence to constitute as an
conspiracy following ingredients must be there-

An agreement between 2 or more persons:

1. To do any illegal act

2. Or any legal act by illegal means.

It must be noted that under 120A of IPC a mere agreement to do such act
would amount to conspiracy and can attract a punishment even though no
act has been done in the pursuance of that agreement

Section 10 deals with the relevancy of those facts which reveal the details
about a conspiracy. The conditions of relevancy under the section are:

There must be a reasonable ground to believe that 2 or more persons

have entered into a conspiracy.

The act in question must have been done after the time when the
intention to conspire was first entertained by any of them.

The act must have been done in the furtherance of common intention.

The evidence of such an act can be given for the following 2

purposes:

1. To prove the existence of the conspiracy

2. To show that a particular person was a party to the conspiracy.

One thing is to be kept in mind is that the words "When there is a

reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired
together" have been used which means that a prima facie case of
conspiracy would be sufficient to be made out to bring this section into
picture. For ex- In Keher Singh v. State (Delhi Admin), The fact that two
accused, one of which actually caused death were seen together before
the event isolating themselves on a rooftop and making every possible
effort to conceal their conversation, was held enough to make out a prima
facie case of conspiracy.

The special feature about this rule is that anything said or written or done
by any member of the conspiracy is an evidence against the other
members even if they are done in their absence or without their
knowledge. The only condition is that the act must have ben done in the
furtherance of common intention.

One more thing that is to be kept in mind in section 10 is the use of words
"in reference to their common intention" which would mean that after the
conspiracy is over, any statement written or oral or any act done by either
of the conspirator will not be relevant under section 10 as the statement
must have been made or the act must have been done in reference of
common intention and not after the completion of the object of
conspiracy. In the case of Mirza Akbar v. Emperor (AIR 1940 P.C. 176), one
Ali Askar was married to Mehr Taja who was in love with another man
Mirza Akbar. One day a guy killed Ali Askar and when the murderer was
nabbed, it came to the light that he was a hired assassin bribed to commit
the murder by Mirza Akbar and Mehr taza. On investigation there were
some letters found which showed that there was communication between
Mehr Taza and Mirza Akbar in which they had expressed their desire to be
together and Mehr taza had asked Mirza Akbar to find a way for them to
be together. Apart from these letters, Mehr taza had made statements
before the examining magistrate after she had been arrested on the
charge of conspiracy. Now it was held that the letters were relevant under
section 10 as they were made during the conspiracy in reference to their
common object. But the statement to the magistrate was held not to be
relevant under this section as it was made after the object of the
conspiracy was already attained and conspiracy had come to an end.

SECTION 12

This section talks about Suits for damages. Whenever in any case where
damages have been claimed, those facts which help the court to
determine the amount of damages that ought to be given in that case
become relevant under section 12 of the act. Section 12 mostly applies to
civil cases where damages or compensation are the most common relief.
Much depends upon the principles of substantive law under which an
action is brought. In tort law the courts take into account the motive,
malice and intention of the wrongdoer. Injured feelings of the plaintiff and
the mental pain and suffering caused by the tort are also relevant as they
too have some bearing upon the quantum of damages. In the law of
contract, the mode and manner of breach, the intention of the party
committing the breach, mental pain and suffering caused by the breach
are all relevant to the question of damages. For ex- where a photographer
failed to appear in a wedding in breach of contract, the court held that the
injured feelings of the plaintiff were relevant to the question of
compensation.

SECTION 13

This section lays down rules of evidence for the proof of rights and
customs. The section applies to all kinds of rights such as full ownership,
or easement etc. Similarly it applies to all customs ancient as well as to
those of a comparatively recent origin. The latter is referred to as usage.

For a particular custom to be valid, it must be continued, unaltered,

uniform and constant and should be reasonable hence when it comes to
prove a custom it poses certain challenges. For example section 5 of
Hindu marriage act, 1955 allows parties who fall under the degree of
prohibited relationship to marry provided that there is a custom prevailing
to that effect in their community. Suppose now there is a person who has
married his mother's sister's daughter. Not this being a prohibited
relationship, he is being prosecuted for the violation of the code. His
defense is that there is a custom prevailing to that effect in his
community. How will such custom be provided. Will he show that others in
his family have married before him in the same prohibited relationship?

But the fact that hundreds of persons have violated an act does not and
cannot establish a custom. Similarly, in the matters of rights, proof of it
often poses a problem. For ex- A person is prosecuted for the theft by the
fishing in the pond and he claims that he has a right to fish in the pond.
The only evidence he may be able to show is that he has been doing so
before. But the previous thefts cannot give him the right.

Modes of proving a Custom or Right:

 Transaction
  Particular Instances

A "transaction" is something already done and completed. Whatever may

be done by one person which affects another's rights, and out of which a
cause of action may arise is a transaction. Thus, any transaction by which
the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified,
recognized, asserted or denied, or which was inconsistent with its
existence is relevant to prove the existence of a custom or aright.
Example of a 'transaction' are: a gift deed, sale deed, an agreement,
coronation, holding a office in a trust, temple, and so on. In a case of
Hurbert P James vs. GulamHussain (AIR 1949 PC 1151) the question was
whether the relationship between A and B was that of partners or of
employee. In 1936. shortly after they started the business A had executed
and handed over to B's lawyer a document in which A had stated that the
relationship between the parties was that of employer and employee. The
document was held to be admissible.

Earlier there was a cleavage of opinion amongst various High Courts as to

whether a former judgment can operate as a "transaction" within the
meaning of Sec. 13.

The Supreme Court in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams vs. K.M Krishniah

(AIR 1998 SC 1132) has upheld the view that previous judgment is a
"transaction" within the meaning of Sec. 13

Instance- It means an example, something which has already occurred.

Sec. 13(b) speaks of the particular instances in which the right was
claimed; or in which its existence was asserted. For this purpose, it is
essential that the instance in which the right or custom was claimed,
recognized, exercised etc. must be instances prior to the present suit in
question. For example, the method or way of property transfer, mortgage.
gift etc. could be proved by giving instances of previous documents on the
subject. The judgment in support of a plea res judicata, lease, oral
partition, entries in the maps are admissible for the purpose.

Section 14

STATE OF MIND

A person's state of mind is his personal secret. It has been said that even
devil does not know what is passing in a man's mind. Hence, to prove if a
man had the requisite MENS REA to commit the crime is a difficult task. To
facilitate this task, Section 14 was enacted. No specific principle has been
established under this section as to how the courts would determine the
MENS REA and has left this discretion on the courts. The courts in order to
do that, take into account each and every fact from which an inference
can be drawn as to the state of mind of a person. For ex- To prove that A
had the knowledge of a particular object that he received is stolen,
evidence can be given of the fact that at that time he was in possession of
other objects which were stolen too. In another scenario to prove that a
person did not know a particular item was a stolen object or not, evidence
can be given of the fact that he refused to sell that object below its
market price.

In Rawson v. Haigh ((1824) 2 Bing 99), the question was whether a debtor
had left the country in good faith or fraudulently with intent to defrauds
the creditors. Letters written by him from abroad, indicating such
intention, were held to be admissible. The letters coupled with the fact of
his running away in a hurry clearly showed his intention to avoid his
creditors.

STATE OF MIND OR BODILY FEELING

Where the state of any person's body or bodily feeling is in question,

evidence can be given of every fact from which it can be inferred. An
important fact for this purpose is the statement of an affected person for
he alone knows best state of the body. In the case of Aveson v. Kinniard
((1805) 6 East 188), upon which illustration (m) is based, there was an
action upon a policy of life insurance on the life of plaintiff's wife. She
having died, the question was whether the statements of the health of the
assured given at the time of affecting the policy were false. The evidence
was given of a statement which she had made to a visitor during a casual
conversation that she was in bad health. This statement made to the
visitor was admitted under this section.

Now, statements about one's own body are self serving in nature and
must be taken with caution. Section 21 says that a person is not permitted
to prove his own statement as to the existence of any state of mind or
body unless when that state existed and is coupled with a conduct which
makes its falsehood improbable.

Explanation 1:

Explanation 1 for the section specifically lays down the rule that only
those facts will be relevant under this section which specifically show the
state of mind relevant to the matter in issue and not a general state of
mind. For ex- where a person has been charged with intentional killing of
another person, evidence can be given of the fact that he had previously
shot at the same person on different occasions. But evidence can not be
given of the fact that the accused is habitual of shooting at random
persons as this does not show specific state of mind of the accused but is
of general nature.

In the case of Reg v. Prabhudas ((1872) 11 Bom H.C. 90) accused was held
for allegedly forging a promissory note. The fact that he was at that time
found to be in possession of number of documents that were apparently
forged was not held top be admissible under this section as it would go on
to show accused's tendency to commit crime of a particular class but no
intention would be proved that he specifically forged that particular
promissory note.

Explanation 2:

There is a general rule that previous conviction of an accused is not

brought before the judge as it would tend to prejudice his mind against
the accused. The record of previous criminality is at best an evidence of
bad character and such evidence is concluded by S.54 of the act. But
section 14 permits the evidence of previous offences to be admitted
whenever this is necessary to prove a particular state of mind, body or
bodily feeling. In the case of Emperor v. Allcomiya Husan the accused was
prosecuted under gambling act for the offence of "Keeping a common
gaming house". Police entered his room and although they did not see an
actual gambling game going on, they found playing cards scattered about
and 10 person sitting on the floor in a circle including the accused. They
also found some money on the floor. Now discovery of all these facts
coupled with the fact that he was previously convicted under this act
actually confirmed his guilt. The accused then appealed against that
admissal of his previous conviction was wrong but court rejected this
argument and said that it was admissible under section 5, 11, 14 and 54
of the act

SECTION 15

Section 14 of the act dealt with all the cases where mental state of state
of body was involved but Section 15 deals with only those cases where we
have to figure out whether the act which was done was intentional or
accidental. Section 14 lays down in a way a general rule where as Section
15 is a specific application of the rule. Those facts which help us figure out
whether a particular act was intentional or accidental become relevant
under section 15 of the act. In the case of Makin v. Attorney General for
New South Wales ((1894) AC 57), A couple was accused of killing a child
and then burying him in their backyard. They defended by saying that
child had died of natural consequences. To overthrow their defense,
evidence was offered of the fact that on earlier occasions also they had
adopted babies and in each case the body was found buried in the
respective house which they occupied from time to time. In another case,
a person had drowned his wife in the bathtub, in order to show it was
intentional, evidence was offered of the fact that he had married 2 times
earlier under similar circumstances and both previous wives had dies by
drowning in the bathtub only.

SECTION 16

If an act has been done in the general course of business, the law, under
section 16, draws a presumption that the act must have been done. For
ex- The question is, whether a particular letter was dispatched. The facts
that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain
place to be carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that
place, are relevant.

Now this presumption in favor of the existence of things shown to have

been done in the course of business is further fortified by illustration (f) to
section 114 which says that the court may presume that the common
people adhere to their routine of business and officials to the routine of
office.

The presumption mentioned over here is of course rebuttable and the

party against whom it is drawn may deny.