Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Delay Not Fatal and Alibi Insufficient – Conviction Upheld in Murder Case: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on October 10, 2023, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction and sentences of the accused in a high-profile criminal appeal. The bench, presided over by Justice Sanjay Karol, addressed various crucial aspects of the case and set important legal precedents.

The central issue in this case was the appeal against the High Court's judgment that confirmed the conviction and sentences of the accused individuals under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. The appellants had raised multiple grounds for their appeal.

One of the key aspects addressed by the Supreme Court was the delay in registering the First Information Report (FIR). The Court emphasized that "delay in filing the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution," highlighting that the timing of filing the FIR should be assessed based on the specific circumstances of each case.

Regarding the plea of alibi raised by the accused, the Supreme Court reiterated the legal principles governing such defenses. It stressed that "for the plea of alibi to be established, something other than a mere ocular statement ought to have been present," emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to substantiate alibi claims.

The Court also examined allegations of contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. After careful analysis, it found that the testimonies were coherent on essential aspects of the case, and there was no substantial contradiction that would undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case.

In response to claims about the deceased's criminal record, the Court noted that such claims were unsubstantiated on the record and could not be used as a defense against the charges. The Court emphasized that a history of criminal involvement could not automatically grant the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences, stating that they were neither excessive nor disproportionate to the crimes for which the appellants were convicted. The Court also canceled the bail granted earlier and directed the appellants to surrender immediately.

This judgment sets important legal precedents in criminal appeals, particularly regarding the assessment of delay in FIR registration and the requirements for establishing an alibi defense. It reinforces the principle that a criminal history of the deceased cannot be used as a blanket defense in cases involving serious charges.

Date of Decision: 10 October 2023

KAMAL PRASAD & ORS.  vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Latest Legal News